I think the valid criticism against Putin being the one stating anything is CONTEXT. The charge is that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Putin is declaring the need for evidence and all manner of polite international discourse and patience that should be shown. The context is just where did Assad purchase nearly 90% of his military hardware, probably including his chemical weapon arsenal, and without a doubt the missiles and platforms used to deploy it? From none other than Putin, so of course Putin wants the burden of evidence to be set at beyond a shadow of a doubt, and wants it voted on unanimously by the UN security council, which he sits on and has reasonable confidence won't be having a unanimous vote he doesn't favor. I don't recall Putin demanding patience and a UN resolution on how to respond to Chechnya a few years back...

Your video, Chemical Weapons (Sarin Gas) - Periodic Table of Videos, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The rationale for Assad in using chemical weapons is a group punishment of sorts for aiding the rebels. The conflict has been locked in back and forth territorial plays between Assad and the rebels. Dumping chemical weapons in a contested zone is a powerful psychological disincentive to the local civilian population in aiding the rebels.

Comparing this to Iraq '03 is misguided. Obama has shown no evidence of being a neoconservative, politically any serious involvement would be hugely damaging. There's good evidence to suggest that once Assad goes, there would be a civil war between the rebels for control. From there the rebels who come to power will likely be Islamic fundamentalists.

Besides, with fracking and CSG, the US is in a vastly different situation visa vi oil and gas, and either way Syria is hardly an oil slick. There's really little reason to get involved besides humanitarian reasons to act as disincentive to future dictators, at this point and I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

@Buck

The opposition to Assad is ragtag of mostly the local Sunni majority as the local Christians, Druze and Alawites have generally aligned themselves with Assad. They have little to nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reporting I have read is saying the strongest insurgents who are doing the weight of the fighting are generally fundamentalist Islamists, they also seem to be receiving the bulk of the funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar unofficial groups who are sponsoring them.

The US is giving arms to purportedly moderate groups through the Supreme Military Council and Syrian Opposition Coalition political organisations, however it is not clear how extensive this program is.

Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

This is as outrageous and unjustified as Israel's last attack in September 2007 in Syria. You remember, the one Syria denied even happened for several months. The one the UN IAEA inspectors confirmed in 2011 almost certainly did destroy a nuclear reactor under construction there.

Israel considered it within it's rights to stop North Korean weaponry being delivered to Syria then, and today, stopping Iranian weapons reaching Hezbollah.

Can you honestly say Israel has no legitimate right to concern over Syrian arms shipments to Hezbollah? Do you honestly believe that Israel should be expected to simply take on faith and trust that Assad, or elements in his military, won't ship chemical weapons to Hezbollah?

Power in politics and the economy is violence. This nonsense at the beginning about how these protesters are totally wrong for hitting the douche-bag is completely blind to the reality of how power is used to solve political/economic disputes.

If students, in a completely symbolic act of opposition march on a university, they get beaten with clubs and attacked with chemical weapons. The people who support them decry the violence, the people who oppose them say they got what they asked for. No action is taken to reduce the disproportionate response by those in power. That's what happens on one side of the class war.

Conversely in a symbolic act of douchebagary some guy walks into a crowd of pissed off people and starts harassing them, with the explicit intent of getting his ass kicked. In this case a few of the protesters, in a non-coordinated fashion throw a couple punches, and other protesters intervene to break it up. Not only do the proponents of said douchbag claim that this somehow proves he is correct about how bad the protesters position is, but the supporters of the protesters also get their undergarments tied in knots expressing their disapproval. This is how the losing side in the class war decides to unilaterally disarm, so don't wonder why we are where we are.

Unions always come to power with the force of violence as a tool, just as workers are always subjugated to power elietes with violence as a tool, to pretend that one side in these disputes somehow has an obligation to be more "civilized", when being so means losing, is to buy hook line and sinker, the propaganda of their opponents.

It would be nice if these disputes could be handled peacefully, but the power elites of the world have learned from the passive resistance movements of the past, and immunized our society from the future use of non-violent civil disobedience. The only thing left is clubs in the street. The only question is if the protesters will have them as well as the police.

@Enzoblue

Like in any democracy, in a union , you get the representation you organize/vote for. Many Democracies are bad, I would even accept that most are. None the less, given the choice between a poorly lead union, where the workers can replace the union leaders, and an un-mediated well lead employer(tyranny), where the leader can be replaced at random by fate/the market, I choose the first.

@Drachen_Jager thanks for the expertise you've brought to this discussion. Somehow chemical weapons have been outlawed by international law, why haven't landmines been as well? It should be a war-crime.

Was going to write witty reply, but @messenger already nailed you.

Hey, I think Rush is on, better get back to your AM radio, you old fogey.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Yes, it was a sly insult of your analytical powers, but between the lines it also was a rebuttal to your argument. I'll explain: The point is that you think Saddam's having WMDs in 1988 has some impact on the fact (not the opinion) that there were no WMDs in 2003. What happened in 1988 doesn't change facts in 2003. But 63% of Republicans (seemingly, including you) still think there were WMDs, even when all the top Republican leaders say so. If your position is, "There were WMDs in 1988 therefore there were WMDs in 2003," that's illogical. We know there were none.

The implication in the joke is that the reason you still believe there were WMDs is that you watch Fox News, which is notorious for wilfully spreading misinformation, particularly following Republican party lines, including about the existence of WMDs.

@KnivesOut, sorry for ruining your joke by explaining it.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?

Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.

Here:

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

That IS disgusting. We do know who is killing them. The refugees that have succeeded in fleeing to Turkey are telling us it was Assad's troops killing them. The SAME Assad that kicked out all journalists that didn't work directly for him. Defectors who've fled to Turkey have similarly reported witnessing first hand that Assad's secret service executed Syrian soldiers that refused orders to fire upon unarmed civilians.
We KNOW who is killing who. Your refusal to acknowledge it is sick.
---------

Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.
Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.


Sorry, your support for foreign-funded sedition is disgusting. Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.

BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) which is in direct violation of their own contrived UN Security resolution in 1973.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.


Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.

Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.

>> ^bcglorf:

I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.


So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?