If people did that, The Federal govt. could shut down water, electricity, gas, and any other utilities that people use. The feds could match guns with tanks, bombs from aircraft, mortars, etc. People taking up small arms against the govt. would only serve to get more people killed, and in the end not be effective at stopping the feds.
This. With current capabilities, the only revolution that would be successful would be if the military itself revolted (which will never happen because both politicians and the wealthy benefit from the MIC).
So now Russia is sending attack helicopters to help Asaad's regime. Link. So is this their way of telling the US to step the fawk off?
Oh shut up. If Obama sends troops in you're going to be complaining he's wasting federal dollars on another war in the Middle East. Meanwhile on the other hand if Romney were president, he could literally go over there and help Assad kill Syrian civilians and you'd be praising his vigor or courage or some other BS like that.
Dude he's just messing with you. Don't let him get your goat so easily. Look at how Moondog owned him with one simple question and he went running away.
That's my problem when going through topics with more than one page. As soon as I see a post that I want to reply to, I don't check the subsequent pages. Lol.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157518/Pictured-Syrias-steroid-mad-Ghost-killers-Assad-power-swooping-villages-massacre-women-children.html
Russia has been assisting Syria and supporting this conflict for a long time. Even their recent involvement stretches far further back than these helicopters. Also, in case you weren't aware, US government has already supplied the rebels with weapons. Non-Middle Eastern forces toying with Middle Eastern lives and meddling in Middle Eastern problems.
It is one Middle Easterner, you are correct. Along with mercenaries, bribed soldiers, and the assistance of at least the Russian government. On the other side, we have the Free Syrian Army which are being provided weapons by yourselves. Now Russia and America are threatning each other in the Middle East. Not only that, they (both the US and Russia) are using Syria as a passage for a potential attack on Iran, one of them for and one against. It's a common story and if you have lived in the Middle East you should know it very well. Other examples of these proxy games in our region: Yemen - W Iraq - W Egypt - W Syria - L Iran - L However, Assad should be behind bars if not for the proxy war in which he did and does gladly hoar himself out to the US or enemy or allies in order to be the one sentencing Syrians to death with the use of your or your enemy's or your ally's weapons. We acknowledge where his loyalty sits, and we can acknowledge that yes he is in on paper at the moment a citizen and passport holder of Syria. If we think about his identity, his loyalty is completely amorphous with its only defining characteristic being anti-Syria and this has been the case since the days of his father. He is as Middle Eastern as Anwar Al Awlaki is American. That's a simple way to put it.
When I first read this I thought you meant that somehow the people in the streets of Syria protesting were somehow being manipulated by Israel/US to do so. Now I think you mean the movement here to go help them is part of that neo-con idea. Which one is it? If it is the former I think that's silly. But I don't think that's what you meant. The latter may have some basis in truth. However, I'm not sure there is really that much desire for regime change and the little there is is likely fueled by the fact that mass protests being squashed by a brutal dictator spreading over twitter, facebook, etc. is impacting people in a way that has never happened before. To the poster who asked about the holocaust. In the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps the US wouldn't have gone in if the Nazis were doing what they were doing to Jews but staying in Germany. Hard to say. If they were doing it today and there were videos of children being put in ovens spreading over twitter? You bet your butt. Especially since they were white and it was happening in a "civilized" country. If black tribal monsters want to hack up other black tribes, sure, a good portion of Americans will use the cringe inducing "well they live in a jungle" line. I can't see it happening for white people being cooked and gassed in a Western European country.
I'm glad you disavow Assad. It must be hard for you to understand why he would want to kill Syrians or other Middle Easterners. If he only knew the way to earn your sympathy was to kill Westerners.
I find it intensely poignant that after the UN stated that Syria was essentially in civil war, Syria immediately protested, saying that they were "fighting terrorist forces". That's exactly what terrorism means under the new American model, and is precisely why it's such a felonious propaganda tool. It has nothing to do with "terror" or unrest anymore, terrorism is simply anything that undermines or reveals state operations.
Actually, unlike you, I don't support any violence by anyone or any country against anyone or any country regardless of history, race, nationality, etc except in extreme cases of self-defense. Whether Barak Obama, Vladimir Putin, Mao, Hitler, OBL, Bush I & II, or Cheney... I would not engage in or support any violence against any of those people. I don't vote for a person into office to do it for me, and I will never do so even when possible, and even if there was no alternative on the ballot. I don't do it myself. I will never ask someone else to kill someone for me or my country. You haven't said anything relevant at all and virtually all your posts in this thread have been personal attacks. So just to be clear I have absolutely no interest in discussing things this way, thanks.
I really dont know how to feel about the Syrian revolution- although I certainly sympathize with the Syrian people and hope for an overthrow of the Assad regime, I cant help but feel that it's doomed to either direct or implicit domination by a larger state. Whether that domination is US domination or Iranian/Chinese/Russian/etc. domination, any outcome that doesnt render autonomous governance will ultimately be looked at as a failure to some degree, and I dont know whether success is really possible given the powerful stakeholders surrounding the situation.
