NWS Nieuws & Achtergronden
Discussieer hier diepgaander over de actualiteiten.
heywoodu
Van bijna dood tot olympiër:
Nee hoor, je mag best je mening op het internet gooien zonder risico te lopen dat je gelijk de gevangenis in gaat.quote:Op zondag 1 september 2013 09:40 schreef betyar het volgende:
[..]
[..]
Als je zo graag actie wilt voeren heb je de consequenties te aanvaarden.
Helaas kan dat sowieso niet door ook je gezicht te laten zien.
Van bijna dood op weg naar de Olympische Spelen, tot olympiër in 2026? Elk beetje hulp wordt bijzonder gewaardeerd!
https://www.gofundme.com/(...)he-spelen-na-ongeval
https://www.gofundme.com/(...)he-spelen-na-ongeval
Gewoon met je volle kop in beeld en mocht het zover komen de orders lekker negeren, dan ben je pas een vent.quote:
[..]als iemand actie voort moet hij dat toch zelf weten hoe hij/zij dat doet?
Goed je punt is duidelijk. Mag ik vinden dat ze het goed doen en een aanzet kunnen geven voor meerdere soldaten?quote:
[..]
Gewoon met je volle kop in beeld en mocht het zover komen de orders lekker negeren, dan ben je pas een vent.
Wie dit leest is een lezer van dit.
Uiteraard.quote:
[..]
Goed je punt is duidelijk. Mag ik vinden dat ze het goed doen en een aanzet kunnen geven voor meerdere soldaten?
Op 
Op
Ja man, Amerika gaat deze aanval uitvoeren om de mensen te helpen daar!quote:
[..]
Belangen? Ook al zo'n belangrijk woord de afgelopen periode. Misschien gaat het daarom, misschien ook niet. Feit is dat onschuldige Syrische burgers slachtoffer worden van chemische aanvallen die in strijd zijn wat van -WE- (fucking !WE! ) hebben afgesproken.
En op dit moment is (schijnbaar) alleen Amerika die zich DAT aantrekt.
Net zoals dat Amerika Irak binnenviel om verboden WMD's. Oh wacht..
'And I called your name,
like an addicted to cocaine calls for the stuff he'd rather blame'
like an addicted to cocaine calls for the stuff he'd rather blame'
grammarnazi, als we het toch over de oorlog hebben wil ik die functie wel bekleden als straks de dienstplicht weer enabled is!quote:
Wie dit leest is een lezer van dit.
-gedraag je-
[ Bericht 98% gewijzigd door timmmmm op 01-09-2013 11:16:39 ]
[ Bericht 98% gewijzigd door timmmmm op 01-09-2013 11:16:39 ]
We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science. - James Lovelock
Je kunt echt niet in beeld je uitspreken tegen oorlog in Syrie. Dan ga je gewoon naar een goulag in Guant Bay. Doet denken aan de Sovjettekes.
Baat 't niet, schaadt 't niet. Dus slikken, kreng.
De Amerikaanse bevolking is voor het overgrote deel tegen, ik moet nog zien dat het Congres zich daar niets van aantrekt.quote:Op zondag 1 september 2013 08:35 schreef SeLang het volgende:
Op TV was iedereen kennelijk verbaasd over de move van Obama maar ik was helemaal niet verbaasd. Kerry had immers de dag ervoor al aangegeven dat ze goedkeuring van het Congres gingen zoeken.
Ik verwacht trouwens dat het congres voor de aanval gaat stemmen, maar daar allerlei beperkingen aan verbindt zodat het geen grote militaire verplichting wordt. Zoals ik gisteren al schreef wordt het daarom een tandeloze aanval op wat "lege gebouwen" en per saldo denk ik dat Assad daar eerder sterker dan zwakker uit gaat komen.
De reden dat ik verwacht dat congres voor stemt is om de schade te beperken. Obama heeft nu eenmaal die "red line" uitspraak gedaan en men zal redeneren dat het schadelijk is voor de VS om dat nu niet op te volgen omdat de geloofwaardigheid van dat soort uitspraken in de toekomst dan weg is (denk aan Iran, Noord Korea, etc). Schoorvoetend zal men dus accoord gaan met een beperkte aanval.
Nu de aanval is uitgesteld en er eerst een betere case gebouwd kan worden zou het me trouwens niet verbazen als de Britten nog op het eerdere besluit gaan terugkomen en uiteindelijk toch nog gaan meedoen. De afwijzing was niet alleen vanwege oorlogsmoeheid maar ook omdat men voelde dat men met haast en zonder bewijs in een nieuwe oorlog werd gejaagd. Bedenk dat toen zij stemden zelfs dat "bewijs" van Kerry niet beschikbaar was.
Het grappige is dat plotseling de Fransen geisoleerd staan. Hollande liep heel stoer dat hij geen goedkeuring van het parlement nodig heeft (formeel hebben Obama en Cameron die trouwens ook niet nodig) maar 60% van de Franse bevolking is tegen een aanval en de druk op Hollande zal dus toenemen om het nu ook aan het parlement voor te leggen. Ik denk dat Hollande aardig heeft lopen vloeken op Obama gisteravond
De rebellen zijn een puinhoop, hoewel het absoluut niet allemaal gekke extremisten zijn. Maar dit is mijn punt niet, mijn punt is dat de situatie zo uit de hand is gelopen (en verder gaat lopen) dat Amerika zich er toch mee gaat bemoeien. Kan je het beter goed doen dan een lullig tikje en vervolgens later weer gedwongen worden in te grijpen. We weten niet zeker wie chemische wapens heeft gebruikt dit keer, maar de tijd komt echt nog wel dat het regime de wereld gaat verrassen met (nog meer) gruweldaden van die orde. Geen enkele twijfel over, slechts kwestie van tijd en wanneer het regime langzaam aan verder uit elkaar valt. Een tweede Halabja.quote:
Oke, die gifgasaanval praat ik niet goed, maar verwacht jij dat er minder gemoord gaat worden wanneer de rebellen de macht kunnen grijpen? Tot nu toe hebben ze dat nog niet laten zien nl. andere groepen gematigde moslims of andere gelovigen vermoorden, uithongeren en misbruiken zie ik dus ook van de kant van de rebellen. Denk dus niet dat de burger gebaat is bij nog meer sektarisch geweld. En nee, ik heb geen oplossing. Ik hoop gewoon dat Amerika zich er buiten gaat houden. Dat Turkije zich er in mengt begrijp ik weer wel want grenst 700 kilometer aan Syrië. Uiteraard dan wel vanuit de VN
Kiezen tussen 2 kwaden. In dit geval zelfs zoveel kwaden... zou ik niet kunnen.
Arme burgers. Hebben ze de hoop op de rebellen gevestigd, doen ze niet onder voor moorden en misbruiken van gezinnen.
Oorlog is de verderzetting van de politiek maar met andere middelen - Clausewitz
Heel graag. Ik vind het interessant te horen hoe jij zelf staat in dit conflict. Dat is bij deze dus ook mijn (eerste) vraagquote:Op zondag 1 september 2013 00:25 schreef Triggershot het volgende:
[..]
Ik zal morgen eens proberen wat vragen te laten beantwoorden als die er zijn in dit topic.
Assad krijgt Alawistan.quote:
[..]
De rebellen zijn een puinhoop, hoewel het absoluut niet allemaal gekke extremisten zijn. Maar dit is mijn punt niet, mijn punt is dat de situatie zo uit de hand is gelopen (en verder gaat lopen) dat Amerika zich er toch mee gaat bemoeien. Kan je het beter goed doen dan een lullig tikje en vervolgens later weer gedwongen worden in te grijpen. We weten niet zeker wie chemische wapens heeft gebruikt dit keer, maar de tijd komt echt nog wel dat het regime de wereld gaat verrassen met (nog meer) gruweldaden van die orde. Geen enkele twijfel over, slechts kwestie van tijd en wanneer het regime langzaam aan verder uit elkaar valt. Een tweede Halabja.
The problem is not the occupation, but how people deal with it.
Laat ze maar wachten tot diep in oktober tot ik terug ben van vakantie uit Turkije dan 
Zonder wrijving geen glans
Ik ga van 7 september tot 14 september. Ik ga dus een hoop missen. Op vakantie heb ik altijd de regel: geen gsm/tablet. De wereld kan er wel eens heel anders uit zien als ik terug komquote:
Laat ze maar wachten tot diep in oktober tot ik terug ben van vakantie uit Turkije dan
en dan vooral met je onderscheidingen vl in beeld, en waarschijnlijk wat exif info en je weet zo wie het is natuurlijk ...quote:
[..]
[..]
Kom dan gewoon met je kop in beeld, zwakke apen dat het zijn.
en je gaat niet het leger in om je mening
04-08-11, 02-02-12, 20-06-14, 13-08-15
Hoezo zo anders uitzien? Leg uit....quote:
[..]
Ik ga van 7 september tot 14 september. Ik ga dus een hoop missen. Op vakantie heb ik altijd de regel: geen gsm/tablet. De wereld kan er wel eens heel anders uit zien als ik terug kom
Alhoewel het sentiment hier puur tegen ingrijpen is, ik persoonlijk vind dat het strooien met gifgas wel eens erg wordt vergeten hier en ik een van de weinigen ben die Obama wel waardeert en op waarde schat, zet ik dit hier toch neer i.v.m. het up-to-date houden van het topic.
Dit is de brief die Obama naar het Congres heeft gestuurd.
Here is the text of the draft legislation from the president of the United States to the speaker of the House and president of the Senate regarding authorization for the use of the U.S. armed forces in connection with the conflict in Syria.
Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;
Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war;
Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world's population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;
Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
Whereas, the objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and
Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will send a clear signal of American resolve.
SEC. ___ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization. -- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to --
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements. --
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements. -- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
http://edition.cnn.com/20(...)index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Dit is de brief die Obama naar het Congres heeft gestuurd.
Here is the text of the draft legislation from the president of the United States to the speaker of the House and president of the Senate regarding authorization for the use of the U.S. armed forces in connection with the conflict in Syria.
Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;
Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war;
Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world's population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;
Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
Whereas, the objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and
Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will send a clear signal of American resolve.
SEC. ___ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization. -- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to --
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements. --
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements. -- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
http://edition.cnn.com/20(...)index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Omdat 9 september het congres in Amerika, etc etc. Ik kan me vergissen, maar is dat hier al niet aangestipt?quote:
[..]
Hoezo zo anders uitzien? Leg uit....
Opinion: The idea that attacking #Syria would be relatively costless diplomatically is profoundly naïve.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door -jos- op 01-09-2013 11:16:58 ]
https://webcache.googleus(...)able-war%2F168179%2Fquote:Another Inevitable War?
Opponents of U.S. intervention in Syria should fine-tune their argument to hit U.S. foreign poilicy where it hurts.
By Jeffrey Cavanaugh | August 31, 2013
In this citizen journalism image made and provided by the Kfar Suseh Coordinating of the Syrian Revolution on Monday June 18, 2012, protesters hold up a placard during a demonstration at Kfar Suseh area, in Damascus, Syria. (AP Photo/The Kfar Suseh Coordinating Of The Syrian Revolution )
In this citizen journalism image made and provided by the Kfar Suseh Coordinating of the Syrian Revolution on Monday June 18, 2012, protesters hold up a placard during a demonstration at Kfar Suseh area, in Damascus, Syria. (AP Photo/The Kfar Suseh Coordinating Of The Syrian Revolution )
A funny thing happened on the way to war with Syria – democracy, that confusingly complex and painfully slow form of government that many, if not most, believe has had the life sucked out of it of late, actually may have stopped a war from occurring. Or at least, British democracy may have.
As it stands presently, the British Parliament stunned the world by narrowly voting down Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to have the United Kingdom join with the United States and France in military strikes against the Syrian regime led by President and presumed war criminal Bashar al-Assad. The vote followed a raucous, though cordial debate in the Commons on the wisdom of striking Syria after an alleged chemical weapons attack by pro-Assad forces against civilians just outside Damascus.
The argument presented by Conservative leader David Cameron apparently did not cut enough of the mustard to sway Parliament, and by a 285 to 272 decision the Prime Minister was forced by parliamentary decision to back down from participating in any US-led strike. This decision in Britain, given the deep public unpopularity of renewed war-making in the Middle East in both the U.S. and Europe, has put renewed pressure on both Washington and Paris to reconsider launching attacks against Assad. Indeed, in the United States only nine percent support taking action in Syria – making a new war against that country less popular than a widely reviled Congress.
More amazingly, the U.S. Congress itself could possibly be gearing itself up to actually do something to prevent war against Syria. House Speaker John Boehner has, for instance, sent a letter to President Obama demanding answers on a wide range of questions pertaining to Syria, including an explanation of how military action, “which is a means, not a policy – will secure U.S. objectives.”
While the Speaker did not also demand President Obama adhere to a formal Congressional vote authorizing military action, such resistance to executive-branch warmongering by an otherwise moribund and hopelessly corrupt legislative branch is refreshing. For his part, President Obama has reacted to Congressional criticism by briefing key members of Congress on the situation in Syria, but so far U.S. lawmakers remain unconvinced. They have urged the President to “do more” in presenting his case for military action.
Could it be, after more than a decade of military adventurism in the Middle East that the West, in particular the United States, is finally tired of wasting its blood and treasure on schemes to bring “order” to that conflict-prone part of the world? Given the certainty with which all thought Western military action was foreordained after reports and video footage of the chemical attack got out, this hemming and hawing by skittish lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic is almost enough to revive one’s diminishing faith in the democratic process.
Almost
Almost is the operative phrase here, because while Congress is at present showing something of backbone in resisting a rush to war against Syria, continued or even successful resistance to President Obama’s proposed bombing campaign is not assured. Indeed, as we have seen, even deeply unpopular wars have a way of starting and continuing, and insofar as an actual invasion seems off the table, the public is likely to accept — even if it does not approve — a limited campaign of cruise-missile strikes and aerial bombardment.
So, despite the backlash against another ill-advised military adventure in the Middle East, opponents of such action are not out of the woods yet. A bombing campaign may still occur for a number of reasons that, though all bad, are still likely to sway establishment Washington into believing action is warranted despite the abovementioned deep unpopularity of embarking upon such a course.
Remember how Libya’s Qaddafi died?
The first of these is the need to assure U.S. “credibility” in the region – a will-o’-the-wisp concept that refers to the willingness of Washington to back up its demands and statements with military force. Credibility, goes the argument, serves a deterrent purpose by creating the belief in the minds of evildoers like Assad that there are consequences to their actions. Bad behavior – such as allegedly raining down chemical weapons on civilians – will thus seem too costly in face of U.S. military retaliation and therefore prohibitive.
While logical in theory, the idea often fails in practice. In fact, scholars of international politics who have examined this very hypothesis have found it usually does not work. It turns out it is not the “shadow of the future” that compels political actors to decide on war, but the stakes they believe to be at stake in a current, ongoing crisis. By this measure, the relative stakes of Washington and Damascus are absurdly lopsided, suggesting that no matter what America does the regime led by Bashar al-Assad will soldier on in its bad behavior.
This is because Assad, by all accounts, is fighting for his survival. If he and his government go down then he, his entire family, and likely his entire ethnic group will be turned out of power, executed and ground to dust by whoever takes over from them. Compared to sharing the fate of Saddam Hussein – who was hanged – and Muammar Qaddafi – who was drug through the streets and stabbed in the ass by an enraged mob – fighting to the death seems cheap in comparison. Fighting, at least, holds some small hope of survival.
Compared to this, bombing to ensure “credibility” seems small change indeed, and Assad likely calculates that he can survive any ensuing aerial campaign and emerge victorious on the opposite end of it – especially if, as seems likely, the Obama administration is only considering a limited series of strikes that will last only a few days. Many leaders have faced such bombing and survived at the other end it, and so Assad may likely believe that he, too, will survive any amount of limited strikes directed against him.
Hazy memories of Kosovo
This in turn raises a serious problem with the second major argument in favor of Western military action against Assad – that it will be limited in nature. As pointed out above, limited strikes against Damascus will accomplish very little in actually deterring Assad from further mass bloodshed if he or his regime believe their survival is at stake.
This means Washington will have to either stand down from its bombing after achieving very little – itself humiliating and conveying weakness and a lack of credibility to U.S. enemies – or face the prospect of ratcheting up its attacks and commitment, perhaps via the deployment, or at least the threat of deployment, of ground troops of some sort.
Given that this is exactly what happened in the 1999 Kosovo campaign, the fact that bombing supporters are using Kosovo as a positive example of what can be accomplished is not reassuring. Yes, Kosovo was eventually liberated and Serbian atrocities against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo stopped, but only at the cost of enraging Russia, which subsequently used Kosovo as justification for attacking Georgia in 2008. Additionally, Western intervention also likely increased the overall level of violence perpetrated against Kosovars, leading to many more deaths than might othwise have been the case.
Finally, the aerial campaign itself was patently unsuccessful in achieving its goals. It ground on for 78 days and only made the Serbs hunker down and wait out the end of the bombing – which in the meantime reduced much of the country’s infrastructure to rubble. It was only when then-President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair began vaguely talking about ground troops that Milo¨ević eventually gave up the ghost and recalled his troops to their barracks.
After this, Kosovo effectively became independent and free of thuggish Serbs security forces, yes, but Milo¨ević remained in power in Serbia for another year until he was ousted by his own people in September of 2000. Such an outcome seems unlikely in Syria as there is no territory to detach as in the Kosovo example and there is no guarantee that a deposed Assad will necessarily translate into a non-Baathist Syria.
Lose-lose scenario
This opens another problem with intervention. Suppose Assad and his regime is overthrown and the “rebels” take over. What then? Who will actually take over running the country? Who will be responsible for providing security, power, water and all the other aspects of civilized life to a Syrian population just traumatized by civil war and foreign intervention? At present, it seems very likely that some sort of militant Islamist group will take over given such groups are heavily funded by outside powers such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Is an Islamist Syria run by militants really any “better” than a Baathist Syria supported by Iran? Given post-conflict chaos in places like Iraq and Libya, this remains to be seen.
Finally, fourth, the idea that attacking Syria will be relatively costless diplomatically is profoundly naïve. Iran, in particular, will not suffer the disappearance of its major regional ally lightly. Already, it has ordered its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon to shore up Assad, and Western intervention may lead Tehran to broaden the conflict to other areas of the region or even outside it. Russia, too, will also not sit idly by and see a major ally go under, and while Russian military action won’t occur – there will be a major price to be paid with Moscow if Assad goes down.
Meanwhile, China is looking on with interest – and could use the fallout from any action against Syria to secure a firmer anti-Western alliance between itself, Russia and Iran if it so desired.
So, in addition to widespread public opposition to a bombing campaign, there are also a number of sound arguments against intervention, most notably that any successful effort to really stop Assad would likely require using enough force to overthrow him. This in turn would be both expensive and dangerous – and bog the U.S. down even further in a region its best interests dictate it should back away from. Chemical weapons and atrocities are horrific, but not necessarily as horrific as what could come from another open-ended intervention in the very heart of the Middle East.
http://swampland.time.com(...)pprove-war-in-syria/quote:Three Reasons Congress May Not Approve War In Syria
Obama has challenged Congress to approve action in Syria, it’s a challenge Congress may not be able to meet
http://m.washingtonpost.c(...)ary-action-in-syria/quote:Why Congress could reject military action in Syria
http://www.welingelichtek(...)e-kwestie-syrie.htmlquote:De democratie is de voorlopige winnaar van de kwestie Syrie
Ik vind ook dat Obama het in deze zaak gewoon goed doet, in tegenstelling tot de imperialisten Kerry, Bush, Hillary Clinton etc.quote:
Alhoewel het sentiment hier puur tegen ingrijpen is, ik persoonlijk vind dat het strooien met gifgas wel eens erg wordt vergeten hier en ik een van de weinigen ben die Obama wel waardeert en op waarde schat, zet ik dit hier toch neer i.v.m. het up-to-date houden van het topic.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door -jos- op 01-09-2013 11:16:58 ]
WEB / [HaxBall #64] Jos is God
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
