|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on May 4, 2011 13:32:00 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by nereah on Jul 24, 2012 11:12:07 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Jul 24, 2012 19:09:34 GMT 3
Oloo,You have been weeding and calling for order around here. So why did you not post this syrian story under the continueing thread 4 black roses from Damascus, started by Titchaz?(Perhaps it escaped you, seeing how you have been engaged as a nanny by your juveniles toiletting around with their mouths! Well, some mothers blogs do have 'em, and yours sure does! so i can be persuaded to 4give your lapse! ;D jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7191
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 27, 2013 21:43:46 GMT 3
OBAMA SET TO ORDER MISSILE STRIKES ON SYRIAN POSITIONS www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800John Kerry used the word moral obscenity, to describe the chemical gas attack near Damascus the other day. Kerry says the USA has proof it is th Assad regime guilty. And there must be consequences. But these proofs have neither been made public nor shared with, for instance, EU governments. Russia and China have warned against military action against Syria. The UK will go along if the USA goes. Most Arab gulf sunni states will support the military actions, as well as Israel. It is then a NATO operation, for it is most unlikely there will be a UN resolution. But it is a count-down to bombs! the war-ships, fregates and submarines, are in position. The question is, what do they want to achieve, and what next for Syria? Withe Egypt and Syria, the traditionally two most formidable Arab nations on their death beds, someone must fill that power vacuum! but who? Chaos? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 27, 2013 21:56:09 GMT 3
The current figures look like about 100,000 killed and about 1.5 million displaced. That's "more than enough", with or without chemical weapons. Something needs to be done, and I hope Obama will quickly do that right thing. Bugger Russia and China.
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Aug 28, 2013 6:51:08 GMT 3
OBAMA SET TO ORDER MISSILE STRIKES ON SYRIAN POSITIONS www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800John Kerry used the word moral obscenity, to describe the chemical gas attack near Damascus the other day. Kerry says the USA has proof it is th Assad regime guilty. And there must be consequences. But these proofs have neither been made public nor shared with, for instance, EU governments. Russia and China have warned against military action against Syria. The UK will go along if the USA goes. Most Arab gulf sunni states will support the military actions, as well as Israel. It is then a NATO operation, for it is most unlikely there will be a UN resolution. But it is a count-down to bombs! the war-ships, fregates and submarines, are in position. The question is, what do they want to achieve, and what next for Syria? Withe Egypt and Syria, the traditionally two most formidable Arab nations on their death beds, someone must fill that power vacuum! but who? Chaos? Libya Reloaded! Someone needs to tell Uncle Sam that actions too have consequences. I suppose it's the Syrians turn (with a little help from their friends) to bloody Obama's nose, just a tad, as the Assad regime is consigned to history... |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 28, 2013 18:55:23 GMT 3
The current figures look like about 100,000 killed and about 1.5 million displaced. That's "more than enough", with or without chemical weapons. Something needs to be done, and I hope Obama will quickly do that right thing. Bugger Russia and China. Obama is only forced to do some token thing. To defend his credibility about the crossed red line he had drawn in the sand. Notice that John Kerry is doing a re-run of the Collin Powel lying presentation at the UN in the run to the Iraq war, when Colin said they were proofs of 'mobile anthrax laboratories!' Kerry said he has conclusive evidence it was the Assad regime that used the gas. But he can not offer this proof for public scrutiny. Asked why, he dodged. Did he think only he has the capacity to UNDERSTAND those proofs? or did he fear those proofs would quickly be exposed as lies? [Within one hour of Collin Powel's mobile laboratory pitch: a German toxicologist and lab technician had refuted, saying the man was lying his black arz red, and the idea of mobile bio-chemical labs culturing anthrax and other 'sins' while mounted on trucks and train carriages, was insane fantasy! And he had a computer generated model to make his point! [John Kerry must have been informed of this rebuttal of old]. But they are a super=power. If they are minded to bomb, they will bomb. Is an array of corpses from a chemical gas attack in Damuscus, a greater moral obscenity than an array of corpses in a mosque from military putschist bullets, as we say in Cairo the other day? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 28, 2013 23:18:04 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
It's the 28th; so I must assume that you are already at Mama Mboga's, enjoying the "advance". Otherwise, how could you have written the above?
Just last month I had another discussion with other Africans, on the ICC, crimes against humanity, etc. For the zillionth time I heard that "the international community should have stepped in in Rwanda", and I am sure that you too have heard it a zillion times. And don't forget that those guys were using machetes, which is as far as one can get from chemical weapons.
So, from a human rights perspective, does it matter whether chemical weapons have been used of not? In my view, absolutely not. Enough is enough. Therefore, with a wave of my hand, I dismiss the Liar Powell, Liar Kerry, ... line of argument. Beside, that's the job of diplomats.
Egypt? Compared to Egypt, Syria is on another planet.
Why is Obama doing it? I dismiss that question too with another wave of my hand. (But, being respectful, I am still using the left hand.) Better that a good man should do good things for "bad" reasons than that a bad man should do bad things for "good" reasons.
Lastly, when the world cries for the "international community" to "do something"---usually during crimes against humanity, famines, and other avoidable nastiness---we all know exactly who the "international community" is. I was very disappointed to wake up this morning and find that the "international community" wasn't already raining hard blows.
|
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Aug 29, 2013 0:58:45 GMT 3
The current figures look like about 100,000 killed and about 1.5 million displaced. That's "more than enough", with or without chemical weapons. Something needs to be done, and I hope Obama will quickly do that right thing. Bugger Russia and China. Obama is only forced to do some token thing. To defend his credibility about the crossed red line he had drawn in the sand. Notice that John Kerry is doing a re-run of the Collin Powel lying presentation at the UN in the run to the Iraq war, when Colin said they were proofs of 'mobile anthrax laboratories!' Kerry said he has conclusive evidence it was the Assad regime that used the gas. But he can not offer this proof for public scrutiny. Asked why, he dodged. Did he think only he has the capacity to UNDERSTAND those proofs? or did he fear those proofs would quickly be exposed as lies? [Within one hour of Collin Powel's mobile laboratory pitch: a German toxicologist and lab technician had refuted, saying the man was lying his black arz red, and the idea of mobile bio-chemical labs culturing anthrax and other 'sins' while mounted on trucks and train carriages, was insane fantasy! And he had a computer generated model to make his point! [John Kerry must have been informed of this rebuttal of old]. But they are a super=power. If they are minded to bomb, they will bomb. Is an array of corpses from a chemical gas attack in Damuscus, a greater moral obscenity than an array of corpses in a mosque from military putschist bullets, as we say in Cairo the other day? Jakaswanga I tend to be more in line with otish otish's line of thought on this. I have watched the international media and had conversations with a number of anti-intervention people. All I seem to hear from the anti-intervention crowd is "the west should back off because there is no proof yet" or "they are only doing it for the oil" angle. When I press them to offer a solution to the 100 000 , and climbing,dead and millions displaced, well, apart from the military intervention, I am met with blank stares... What has humanity been reduced to jameni. All those deaths have become just a figure like we try to balance with our budget. It has been a year and a half of massacres while 'shuttle diplomacy goes on'. Someone can finish a political science degree in that amount of time. While the diplomacy goes on, the numbers dying havnt stopped. We are currently at a stalemate and the only thing that seems to be moving is the deaths. Surely life should be at the top of reasons to intervene. Whether chemicals were used or not, there is no difference in the condition called death. Killing is killing. So once again, I beseech, anyone with a solution to reduce and eventually stop the casualties ? I am all ears. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Aug 29, 2013 8:51:08 GMT 3
Obama is only forced to do some token thing. To defend his credibility about the crossed red line he had drawn in the sand. Notice that John Kerry is doing a re-run of the Collin Powel lying presentation at the UN in the run to the Iraq war, when Colin said they were proofs of 'mobile anthrax laboratories!' Kerry said he has conclusive evidence it was the Assad regime that used the gas. But he can not offer this proof for public scrutiny. Asked why, he dodged. Did he think only he has the capacity to UNDERSTAND those proofs? or did he fear those proofs would quickly be exposed as lies? [Within one hour of Collin Powel's mobile laboratory pitch: a German toxicologist and lab technician had refuted, saying the man was lying his black arz red, and the idea of mobile bio-chemical labs culturing anthrax and other 'sins' while mounted on trucks and train carriages, was insane fantasy! And he had a computer generated model to make his point! [John Kerry must have been informed of this rebuttal of old]. But they are a super=power. If they are minded to bomb, they will bomb. Is an array of corpses from a chemical gas attack in Damuscus, a greater moral obscenity than an array of corpses in a mosque from military putschist bullets, as we say in Cairo the other day? Jakaswanga I tend to be more in line with otish otish's line of thought on this. I have watched the international media and had conversations with a number of anti-intervention people. All I seem to hear from the anti-intervention crowd is "the west should back off because there is no proof yet" or "they are only doing it for the oil" angle. When I press them to offer a solution to the 100 000 , and climbing,dead and millions displaced, well, apart from the military intervention, I am met with blank stares... What has humanity been reduced to jameni. All those deaths have become just a figure like we try to balance with our budget. It has been a year and a half of massacres while 'shuttle diplomacy goes on'. Someone can finish a political science degree in that amount of time. While the diplomacy goes on, the numbers dying havnt stopped. We are currently at a stalemate and the only thing that seems to be moving is the deaths. Surely life should be at the top of reasons to intervene. Whether chemicals were used or not, there is no difference in the condition called death. Killing is killing. So once again, I beseech, anyone with a solution to reduce and eventually stop the casualties ? I am all ears. , one question. Who is financing Assad's opposition? Who is doing the "killing"? The Assad regime is only doing what any government in the world would do. Fighting for it's survival (in KE we call that status quo  & we maintain it with abundance). When you hear the so called "international community" harping on its propaganda stations (the CNN's of this world) that they need to up the ante by launching a few Tomahawks on Assad's a$$ then you know the current game plan for regime change that has been ongoing for over a year, culminating in those 100,000 plus casualties, ain't working.... These guys want to carve up Syria like they will do in Libya & Iraq... And as Jakaswanga asked earlier, who will fill the power vacuum then? |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Aug 29, 2013 10:16:14 GMT 3
B6k.
I am pretty sure the Syrian crisis is a continuation of the arab spring started about three years ago in Tunisia methinks when a local man burned himself next to the local council offices in protest at the corruption that was prevalent.
It eventually culminated into a revolution where the despotic leader who had thought the country is his kingdom, was ousted.
It quickly spread in many Arab countries where many despots were ousted. Some, like the Tunisian one, took the civil route and left instead of engaging his army on hapless protestors. Some despots like mubarak attempted using security forces but on a limited basis and very subtly. The situation didn't escalate to bombs and heavy artillery. You can check out the number of casualties in egypt during the revolution and compare with syria.
It then spread into libya where strong man gadaffi promised fire and brimstorm on the protestors who were unarmed initially. We saw images of people being bombed etc from libya by the gadaffi forces. Surely something had to be done...
Enter syria, did assad handle the protestors like the tunisian chap or like gadaffi. In my opinion, and several others, he had reached a point of no return when he unleashed the army on the protestors. He had arms support from russia and iran. He even got manpower from the hezbollah group. It was going to be a major massacre if the rebels were not armed with heavier weapons. Assad was not negotiating. He was out for blood. It was a good move by the west to arm the rebels to even out both sides. It was a better choice when weighed against the other prospect of total annihilation. Imagine that...
Well it has been more than two years with the east vetoing any resolution on syria, saying that they are still in talks with assad. Two years a guy, two years ?
This is not the first time chemical weapons have been used by the assad forces, reports show that he has used it about ten times before. That just goes to show the mentality of the man. He is a despot who thinks the rule of the country is his god given birthright. The revolution to bring full democracy in his country was met with brutal force. Evil.
I still believe this current chemical attack may have happened but at least it gives the west a much needed excuse to do what they should have done earlier. Intervene and change the course of the stalemate. I don't know about you but to me, one more death is more than enough. Hii mambo unasema ati carving up the country is just baseless propaganda that was even used by Gadaffi. Look at libya now...
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 29, 2013 10:18:20 GMT 3
Does it ever matter how one dies? Machete, bullet, bomb, napalm or sarin......bottom line is they are dead! That is why I think it is hypocritical to come to action under the guise of chemical weapons no one seems to know who unleashed killing a few when 100,000 are already dead.
If you ask me, I think the western world wants to divert our attention from the military coup in Egypt by manufacturing the chemical weapons story.
The sad reality is that the urgency to move Assad will only bring about another extremist government as most of the rebels fighting Assad are Al Qaeda elements. As the old movie said....any which way you lose!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 29, 2013 18:59:58 GMT 3
Jakaswanga: It's the 28th; so I must assume that you are already at Mama Mboga's, enjoying the "advance". Otherwise, how could you have written the above? Just last month I had another discussion with other Africans, on the ICC, crimes against humanity, etc. For the zillionth time I heard that "the international community should have stepped in in Rwanda", and I am sure that you too have heard it a zillion times. And don't forget that those guys were using machetes, which is as far as one can get from chemical weapons. So, from a human rights perspective, does it matter whether chemical weapons have been used of not? In my view, absolutely not. Enough is enough. Therefore, with a wave of my hand, I dismiss the Liar Powell, Liar Kerry, ... line of argument. Beside, that's the job of diplomats. Egypt? Compared to Egypt, Syria is on another planet. Why is Obama doing it? I dismiss that question too with another wave of my hand. (But, being respectful, I am still using the left hand.) Better that a good man should do good things for "bad" reasons than that a bad man should do bad things for "good" reasons. Lastly, when the world cries for the "international community" to "do something"---usually during crimes against humanity, famines, and other avoidable nastiness---we all know exactly who the "international community" is. I was very disappointed to wake up this morning and find that the "international community" wasn't already raining hard blows. First, you are mixing several issues. And I will be patient. I could be at mama Mbogas, but you too, could be on the upteenth stiff one, of the Johnie Walker variety! 1. There is the immediate suffering, and there is the historical perspective. The historical perspective was captured by an American lawyer cum political strategist explaining why Rwanda was a no go. ---The president wont loose an election over it, and there are better ways of wasting US taxpayers money than stopping that genocide which is a fairly routine event in that country! When smoke clears up, some guy would have won, and we will call him the good guy and pet him some! Americans will buy it! Call me a moral failure, but if I were a moral success, then surely I would be a preacher in a church, and not one helping the POTUS choose who to kill and who to let live, given budgetary constraints!!' ---Beautiful real politic which, to me, illustrates why the USA runs a world empire. No emotive illusions. And so it became Paul Kagame the good guy. NB: Paul Kagame likes to stick it to the West, that they failed to stop the genocide. But he could not give an answer when this same lawyer asked him: what makes you think I should care enough to bother my conscience whether all the fwacking Hooties or Tooties die at once? I would of course express regret publicly. I am civilised. But you would be a fool to believe me. Go sulk in hell Kagame. Either way I do not care. You are not important enough for me to care!' (How is that for a sense of reality!?) If I were Syrian, I would ponder that. 2. That I question the motives of Obama, and reveal the 'hypocrisis' of fellas like John Kerry, does not necessarily mean I am against the intervention. .
Even if you support a war, it is still important to unravel or deconstruct the lies under which it is fought. You are then better placed to be no pawn in the game. I do not believe in covering my mind with illusions about the good intentions of colonial or neo-colonial powers. My chief interest is to determine for myself what the best FOREIGN POLICY position would be for the KENYAN state, vis a vis this impending Obama fireworks. I have no emotions invested in Syria.
3. It is possible the purpose of the Obama intervention, is merely to redress the battlefield balance which, of late, has swung in favour of Assad. But given that the bulk of the rebel fighting is the responsibility of the radical Jihadists of the al-Qaeda and Saudi fundamentalist mode, Obama is wary of the possibility of a Talibhan-like regime in Damascus, and it is this indecision at risk assessment, that forces the USA to intercede, yet not commit to BOOTS ON THE GROUND. [The other good reason is finance, since the US treasury is set for another budget ceiling crash in October, and printing money to fund a foreign war in a non-oil country, simultaneously as to fund stuff at home, would be beyond the toughest of FED controllers. ---So Obama is chained to limitations of his country's interests, and economic means].
So, what he could hope to maximise is saftety for Israel, and a weakening of Tehran who is Damascus only state ally in the region. In other words these are the foreign policy goals Obama aims to achieve. A useless Syria.
NB. All Christians are back to supporting Assad. WHY? Secularim. When the 'freedom fighter rebels have overrun Christian settlements, either they convert forcefull to Islam, or leave, that is a religious cleansing, unfortunately escalating in neighbouring Iraq too.
NB 2: You also misunderstood my Egyptian comparison: here I go:
To explain why NOW the US is going to intervene, John Kerry said the gas attack is a moral obscenity which can not go unpunished [leave alone the fact that there have been close to 10 reported gas attacks in the conflict, perpetrator unidentified.]
The I asked, on the qualfication of MORAL OBSCENITY: is a gas death more morally obscene than a bullets death as in Cairo, or beheadings by cutlasses or matchetes [as Kamale asks?]
I am saying John Kerry is morally confused on the nature of mass murder. I would say MASS MURDER IS MASS MURDER, even when it is one of Obama's hellfire missiles, released from a drone, which obliterated a Pashtun primary school, +300 kids dead, in Waziristan Pakistan. ---This one we called COLLATERAL DAMAGE  .
No, Otishotish, Karl Rove once described John Kerry as a man you want check everything he tells you five times! A nice hint.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 29, 2013 20:29:29 GMT 3
Jakswanga: I hadn't touch a drop. Otherwise we would have exchanged more colorful words, of the type that the Comrade would never allow. E.g. follow the link below and read the line that starts with "Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband"! www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-ed-miliband-succour-assadSounds like your kind of guy ("stylistically") ...  |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 29, 2013 20:44:47 GMT 3
Jakswanga: I hadn't touch a drop. Otherwise we would have exchanged more colorful words, of the type that the Comrade would never allow. E.g. follow the link below and read the line that starts with "Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband"! www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-ed-miliband-succour-assadOtishotish! Number 10 Downing said that of the leader of Her Majesty's opposition! Not since John Major allegedly referred to right-wing rebels----- within his cabinet, under Redwood I think they were [they had promised not to challenge John Major, then whispered to the press there would be a challenge from somebody WITHIN the cabinet]-------- as 'sons of sodomised bastarads', have I ever heard of such expletives from Downing Street! Milliband is a what!? and a copper what!? No such thing as a British stiff upper lip, nor tongue in cheek! nor colour blindness!  |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Aug 30, 2013 0:46:25 GMT 3
B6k. I am pretty sure the Syrian crisis is a continuation of the arab spring started about three years ago in Tunisia methinks when a local man burned himself next to the local council offices in protest at the corruption that was prevalent. It eventually culminated into a revolution where the despotic leader who had thought the country is his kingdom, was ousted. It quickly spread in many Arab countries where many despots were ousted. Some, like the Tunisian one, took the civil route and left instead of engaging his army on hapless protestors. Some despots like mubarak attempted using security forces but on a limited basis and very subtly. The situation didn't escalate to bombs and heavy artillery. You can check out the number of casualties in egypt during the revolution and compare with syria. It then spread into libya where strong man gadaffi promised fire and brimstorm on the protestors who were unarmed initially. We saw images of people being bombed etc from libya by the gadaffi forces. Surely something had to be done... Enter syria, did assad handle the protestors like the tunisian chap or like gadaffi. In my opinion, and several others, he had reached a point of no return when he unleashed the army on the protestors. He had arms support from russia and iran. He even got manpower from the hezbollah group. It was going to be a major massacre if the rebels were not armed with heavier weapons. Assad was not negotiating. He was out for blood. It was a good move by the west to arm the rebels to even out both sides. It was a better choice when weighed against the other prospect of total annihilation. Imagine that... Well it has been more than two years with the east vetoing any resolution on syria, saying that they are still in talks with assad. Two years a guy, two years ? This is not the first time chemical weapons have been used by the assad forces, reports show that he has used it about ten times before. That just goes to show the mentality of the man. He is a despot who thinks the rule of the country is his god given birthright. The revolution to bring full democracy in his country was met with brutal force. Evil. I still believe this current chemical attack may have happened but at least it gives the west a much needed excuse to do what they should have done earlier. Intervene and change the course of the stalemate. I don't know about you but to me, one more death is more than enough. Hii mambo unasema ati carving up the country is just baseless propaganda that was even used by Gadaffi. Look at libya now... , interesting that you should mention the so-called Arab Spring. As far as I know, apart from Tunisia where the people power was genuine & caused by a spontaneous reaction to the fruit vendor's self immolation, all other countries where the spring was copy-pasted (read engineered) have turned out to be worse off than they were with their former despots in power. Libya is a hell hole & last I checked a US ambassador & 3 other Americans lost their lives to people whom they had helped "liberate". Asante ya punda. Black Africans were also being murdered wantonly once the despot who invited them in was taken out... Egypt is no better & teetering on the verge of civil war. I suggest you read " The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Importance" by Zbigniew Brezinski. This former US National Security Advisor (to the Jimmy Carter regime) spelled out, in great detail, the plans for US hegemony in Eurasia back in 1997. These countries will be carved up, it's just a question of when. Just watch the Kurds in Iraq (& Turkey) & the Eastern part of Libya that formed the bulk of Gaddafi's opposition. Here's a nice summary of events in The Middle East by K N Al-Sabbah that was printed in The Financial Times of London a few days ago....  |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Aug 30, 2013 6:07:32 GMT 3
B6K
Great to have you back active and not lurking. Good perspective. I have friends who used to live in two of these countries during the so called despotic era and have since relocated. They were very happy businessmen, their children were attending schools with the local community without trouble and life was good. Then the so called liberator arrived with a message of democracy and human rights, and all hell broke loose; those countries have been turned upside down. The guys had to leave. Some villages that had very good schools and hospitals, have nothing. Those that still exist, have students no teachers, the hospitals have no drugs nor doctors. Humanitarian aid is the order of day in places where communities were very independent. You look at all these and wonder as to whether such interventions make sense esp to the locals.
~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Aug 30, 2013 7:30:18 GMT 3
B6KGreat to have you back active and not lurking. Good perspective. I have friends who used to live in two of these countries during the so called despotic era and have since relocated. They were very happy businessmen, their children were attending schools with the local community without trouble and life was good. Then the so called liberator arrived with a message of democracy and human rights, and all hell broke loose; those countries have been turned upside down. The guys had to leave. Some villages that had very good schools and hospitals, have nothing. Those that still exist, have students no teachers, the hospitals have no drugs nor doctors. Humanitarian aid is the order of day in places where communities were very independent. You look at all these and wonder as to whether such interventions make sense esp to the locals. ~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~ , good to hear from you. Indeed the interventions in the long term end up creating more problems than solving anything. Nature abhors a vacuum. Take Lybia for example. Apart from their oil resources the nation sits atop a very large water aquifer that Gadaffi had tapped into and was supplying cities such as Tripoli piped water to residents homes...FREE OF CHARGE! I bet you the "liberators" are now planning to create a "Nairobi Water Co" equivalent by privatizing this crucial resource that until recently was available to all Lybians gratis but they will now have to pay for...  It pains me to see children of the Third World celebrating when a despot is brought to his knees on the say so of western terror exporter & his cronies. People seem to forget that a lot of these Arab countries share a common history with African countries. We had the same slave masters colonial powers & the creation of our "countries" was a haphazard exercise when these white folk sat in boardrooms & drew lines in the sand (just look at a map & see how straight some of these lines run) without a concern to how they were dividing, or uniting different peoples in one space. All they cared about was access to their oil fields in The Middle East & a steady supply of cheap raw materials from Afrika. Back then it was convenient for them to install a pliant despot to run things for them via remote. I believe every nation has its right to determine its own destiny, however flawed its means of attaining this may appear. Europe once had its own despots. The awakening of their populations saw an end to many although some are still retained as wealthy museum pieces. Why can't Afrika be allowed to run its own course even if it may include the odd war or two (how were European nations forged if not by the sword & the gun?). Right now it is easy for the very same western powers to preach high-falluting messages of "democracy" with one hand while fomenting insurrection to opposition groups within any given nation with the other hand since there are always willing players to topple any given "despot", given the haphazard way in which our nations were put together with opposing clans and or tribes. So I ask Omundu again, what is any despot going to do. Wait for a million man march of fully armed malcontents to march on state house with the gates open? I believe where the Middle East is today, Afrika will be in another 20 or so years. Rebels will be funded, wars will be fought for our resources and we will live in misery with nothing but Tomahawks & Hellfire missiles raining down on our heads. The carving up has already started with Sudan. Their president is also a most wanted man by the ICC. Did you notice the number of eminent westerners in the stands during the "independence" celebrations? Next will be Darfur...& so on.... |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Aug 30, 2013 22:06:47 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Aug 31, 2013 7:26:16 GMT 3
An American merchant of death speaks & we are supposed to accept his findings at face value? It's always the same thing. The "tough questions" & "tough answers" will be asked, Assad will be taken out, & then a year or two down the road the western press will start reporting that the "compelling evidence" was flawed or false. By then it will be a fait accompli & no one will give a thought about the illegality of taking out just another Middle Eastern despot...  |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Aug 31, 2013 20:10:20 GMT 3
At least b6k states that what is a despot to do when there is a million man march against him.
It takes courage to come out like that and show that for you, it is not about internationally acceptable standards of treating the civilians/democracy. It is about other issues. I commend you for that and also a couple of people who recently have been telling me their option would be to let the syrians go about with killing themselves. No other option, at least no US military intervention. Mark you, these are the same people who kept quiet and were not fazed when atrocities happened in syria these past two years with over 100 000 dying. We went about out business and when asked, many said, I don't care where even syria is. Their interests were only peaked when america decided to go the military route. As proof, just check how idle this thread was until america hinted ... It is actually astounding. if they didn't care what happened in syria, why should we start caring now about the collateral damage from precision strikes ? More on that later, including the fact that I couldn't hide my disbelief when putin mentioned the likely civilian casualties from an american attack of select military target. Eish, the same putin who hasn't raised a voice condemning both sides of the many dead so far or the more than ten other chemical attacks reported previously ? Wow, suddenly, he searches deep within and finds his humanity after all ? Kweli miujiza haya.
B6k, I normally try to look at events like this wholistically and from an historical perspective. And by the way, most revolutions are messy affairs and it takes time for a population to find its feet and order to resume. It is a neccesary sacrifice that they understand , would lead to a better life for them later or their offspring. I would also extend the gratitude you did me and advice you read on past revolutions like perhaps the american or french revolution.
Let's attempt to look at a historical perspective and see what may be forcing obamas hand to prevent the conscience battle that others like clinton went through while reflecting on their legacies:
I do not disparage what other have said here, a death is a death is a. Death, no matter how it is delivered. However, international law can be an ass sometimes, but history teaches us why it should be respected. I am talking about toxic gas weapons (classified as WMD's by the UN) there is a reason why it is there. With over 40 million dead in the two world wars, the world was shocked to discover that there actually is no zenith in the evil that man can visit upon humanity. There was something about the barbarity of gas attacks that is akin to spraying doom to kill coackroaches in your room. The cheapness and effectiveness of such a system scared many. The world reached a resolution that NEVER AGAIN would such a killing system be used again against humanity, it became illegal. They understood that war was neccessary but it had to be sanitized by using conventional weapons (I know, hehehehe, but I said earlier that the law was an ass) and that's why russia and china had confidence several times before, to veto any UNSC resolution on syria. It was a sanitised war before the chemical weapons. The same league of nations, earlier in the century also passed a resolution stating that NEVER again will the world sit and watch mass atrocities committed against humanity. What happened ? More on this later.
I also share the sentiments of others as to why wait for all those dead and only purport to react now. But that line of thought fails to see the intricacies in such developements. During the great war, america and most in the west sat thinking that hitler won't affect them and so fu## it. America only came in way later after many deaths but came in nonetheless. No need saying how the world would be now if they hadn't intervened. The korean war and many other interventions come to mind. I am also aware that other interventions went wrong and were for the wrong reasons, but does that mean they should stop indefinitely ? The fact that they are only acting now (with reasons I will explain) should not be the reason why they shouldn't intervene. How about the balkans ? Wasn't the intervention necessary in retrospect ? Aren't they much better off now ?Ponder on that and the fact that time should be factored before making rash judgements on the arab spring.
If not for intervention, then who gets to decide ? Does america then adopt an isolationist approach and to each, msalaba yake ? With that line of thinking, we shouldn't have looked west when rwanda happened, mali, how about they call off their hunt for kony and bring the boys home ? How about they stop offering kenya and others, military support, especially in our recent incursion into somalia (something not far from the syrian scenario) so should they just pack up and go leaving us be or should they wait for when it hits close to our backyard and only affect you for you to tell them it is now ok to intervene when the AU sits and watches ? Basically, like others have stated, we are special but the arabs are not. For me, the legal and moral foundation for western intervention in syria is not better or worse than it was for kosovo, mali, darfur etc speaking of which, are there any russian or chinese aid agencies in darfur or anywhere else in africa ? Did they at least apologise (even if it is crocodile tears as americans did) for not coming to our aid during the rwandan crisis ? So spare me but, I would be very wary of taking the angle that such people have on syria. Just like you b6k, they don't care or purport to have the damn on the bloodshed or humanitarian crisis in syria and neighbours. That's why you wouldn't see them helping the refugees. It is a problem of the west. Syria has no elephants for ivory.
The fact that the obama administration has a profoundly different approach to foreign policy than the bush administration has not escaped me, contrary to what others say. We have example of this including him trying to get out of iraq and afghanistan, his aversion to military strikes against iran, libya where they were in and out in no time (no boots on the ground) and also the osama operation which was clearheaded and different from invading pakistan for sheltering osama. I will get to the drone strikes later. However, he is still someone I would listen to more in regard to syria as oppossed to the ex kgb putin. With that in mind, let's see what the obama admin is sayingin comparison to what bush said as a pretext of invading iraq: bush lied to us saying there was ample proof that WMD's existed in iraq and they financed alqaeda. The proof we got wasn't ample enough also because saddam hadn't used them on anyone etc etc. In the current situation, anyone can youtube and see that indeed there were indications of chemical attacks, infact, no one is disputing that fact. No one is also disputing the fact that the syrian government is more likely to posses and use the toxic gas, some say israel supplied the rebels but that arguement falls flat in its face when you factor in the effects of that act on israels future security. In a non controlled environment, those weapons to the "al qaeda" fighting assad would easily find its way into the hands of the palestinians, wouldn't it ? John kerry showed us the intelligence that the rockets were fired from assad controlled areas,amongst those killed are about fifty rebel soldiers, communication intercepts showing that the regime soldiers were ordered to wear gas masks before the attacks and the generals reacting in surprise that the casualties were heavier that expected. I ask those seeking evidence, including the east, what more evidence do they need ? What exactly constitutes this evidence that they seek ? And isn't this more evidence than was provided by cheney bush ? So there is no need to cloth the bush and obama regimes in the same clothe. Some would say vested interests like in egypt but I ask, wouldn't it be silly to have vested interests and act on them to protect them ? Is anything wrong with that ? Why did kenya invade somalia if not for vested interests.
How many times have the russians and chinese vetoed more stringent measures at the UNSC ? And most of these measures did not even involve military intervention. They actually gave assad impetus to commit more atrocities by the vetos. They even vetoed a un buffer zone. That's why my angst and cynicism when putin all of a sudden cares about collateral damage.
Many are against it thinking it is in a far off land and not near home, but hold up! It is nearer home that we thought. There is a thing called precedent in granting immunity from impunity to others. And we all know how our african leaders and others are keenly watching to see. It is also a precedent that other terrorist organisations are highly likely to jump on. If assad is using the toxic weapons indiscriminately against his people, who can gain access to those weapons and use them against others ? We know hezbollah fights for assad, we know iran is pro assad, we know irans involvement in terrorism including about a year ago when two iranian agents were caught trying to organise strikes with al shabaab on kenyan soil. What would they do with chemical weapons and imagine how easy it is for them to get it and use it if they know there won't be internatinal retaliation. Something has to hold these despots back. And for those that say it is the rebels who used the chemicals against their own people or some rogue syrian generals, then I would be more afraid because it goes to show that assad is not in control of these things. Imagine then... So basically, we have a brutal regime that has used chemicals on its people several times before and is likely to use it even on a larger scale again if no action is taken. So those who are against america policing the world, imagine the flip side when it is a wild west and to each his own. The objective then, is to dissuade/increase the cost of assad or any other tyrant from using such means in future. I currently see no compelling arguement that non military actions will dissuade further attacks. Some here and elsewhere are saying ati we let the syrians decide for themselves, hehehe, as if assad has any intentions of letting syrians decide anything, even via the ballot. Unless being conquered by a gang of armed thugs constitutes deciding for themselves.
There is a clear legal difference between intentionally targeting civilians/areas with toxic chemical weapons compared with civilian casualties that result from otherwise legitimate military actions, say precision strikes or drones after terrorists. I believe we use the word INTENT. The terms of reference I would opine for the assad acts would be CALLOUS DISREGARD. This is unacceptable even if it was done using conventional weapons so in my opinion, the syrian civil war is teeming with a bookfull of crimes against humanity. I believe security experts term it , using disproportionate force in the war theatre . E.g there is a difference between targeted drone strikes in pakistan against al qaeda elements and collateral damage occurs compared to, say russia in afghanistan and grozny where they indiscriminately levelled towns. Also, gadaffi and assad using bombs on civilians and levelling towns along with the occupants.
All in all, I understand the cynicism from certain quarters. Because of eight years of bush/cheney, we have no desire left to hold foreign leaders accountable for acts that we once readily desired to hold them accountable for. Heck, we even have books written against it as b6k shows. I understand that bush made the world weary of war. Recent history explains that reluctance, older history reminds us of the danger of succumbing to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 31, 2013 20:53:45 GMT 3
Friend Omundu:
That was an excellent commentary---deep, broad, and well-reasoned.
What exactly is being proposed by those who cry "hypocrisy!", "why wait until now?", ... Is their suggestion that nothing be done and things be allowed to get worse? Put yourself in the shoes of those who are seeing their loved ones killed, their homes destroyed .... do they really care about "hypocrisy" and "why now"?
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 1, 2013 2:14:15 GMT 3
Friend Omundu: That was an excellent commentary---deep, broad, and well-reasoned. What exactly is being proposed by those who cry "hypocrisy!", "why wait until now?", ... Is their suggestion that nothing be done and things be allowed to get worse? Put yourself in the shoes of those who are seeing their loved ones killed, their homes destroyed .... do they really care about "hypocrisy" and "why now"? I understand Assad is to be punished by a few bomb runs which do not alter the balance of the war, because Obama does not want that. Tilting. So let us not say Obama wants to halt the slaughter. You wan to halt slaughter, then boots on the ground. But he wont do that. And we know, if the rebels win, it will be slaughter day, non sunnis dying. I am curious why the Americans do not insist Assad be arrested and hauled to the Hague!? Why are they so vague? Uhuruto's exploits look childish compared to this Assad guy! [On the positive side, it means Kenyan blood is more expensive than Syrian!] |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Sept 1, 2013 2:32:30 GMT 3
I understand Assad is to be punished by a few bomb runs which do not alter the balance of the war, because Obama does not want that. Tilting. So let us not say Obama wants to halt the slaughter. You wan to halt slaughter, then boots on the ground. Let's wait and see what is done and what effect it has. RE "boots on the ground": remember Libya? That would require a referral from the UN Security Council. Russia and China have consistently opposed anything that would be tough. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Sept 1, 2013 2:32:34 GMT 3
Friend Omundu: That was an excellent commentary---deep, broad, and well-reasoned. What exactly is being proposed by those who cry "hypocrisy!", "why wait until now?", ... Is their suggestion that nothing be done and things be allowed to get worse? Put yourself in the shoes of those who are seeing their loved ones killed, their homes destroyed .... do they really care about "hypocrisy" and "why now"? I understand Assad is to be punished by a few bomb runs which do not alter the balance of the war, because Obama does not want that. Tilting. So let us not say Obama wants to halt the slaughter. You wan to halt slaughter, then boots on the ground. But he wont do that. And we know, if the rebels win, it will be slaughter day, non sunnis dying. I am curious why the Americans do not insist Assad be arrested and hauled to the Hague!? Why are they so vague? Uhuruto's exploits look childish compared to this Assad guy! [On the positive side, it means Kenyan blood is more expensive than Syrian!] , KE is a legal test case. Sadly I just became a victim of what Njakip once claimed was a new-look Jukwaa proboards weakness. You can & will lose narrative if your settings aren't right. I was busy debunking Omundu's "excellent commentary" point by point when I hit God knows what button & it all went to cyberspace. Anyhow, these are the breaks & I hope someone at Langley, VA is keeping tabs on my keystroke data to know what I had intended to post. I will revert to Omundu's diatribe when I find the time.... |
|
& we maintain it with abundance). When you hear the so called "international community" harping on its propaganda stations (the CNN's of this world) that they need to up the ante by launching a few Tomahawks on Assad's a$$ then you know the current game plan for regime change that has been ongoing for over a year, culminating in those 100,000 plus casualties, ain't working....
.
