Dev,
As the board's authority on such matters, would you be good enough to advise us on the following :
1. Both the US and Russia are actively involved in Syria. Russia is involved at the request of its ally the syrian government. The US is involved for example by supplying resources and arms to syrian rebels, by training syrian rebels, and by arranging political opposition to president assad. Russia is there because it is a long term ally of Syria who has asked for its assistance. Why is America there ? And on what basis is Russia the imperial adventurist, rather than the US ?
2. The US and Saudi have stated that Assad can not remain president in Syria. What business is it of theirs ?
3. The US asserts that the reason for its involvement in Syria is that it is opposed to human rights abuses by president assad. And yet, the US's main ally in the region (aside from israel), is Saudi Arabia. Not only do they work together in their battle against Assad, but Saudi is the US's main trading partner in the region. Saudi buys billions of dollars of arms from the US annually, and did the biggest arms deal in human history with US the year before the war in syria broke out. And yet, not only are there far far less freedoms in Saudi than there ever were in Syria, but Saudi has the worst human rights record of any country on the planet, having a criminal justice system akin to that of ISIS, punishment by amputation for theft, and death by stoning for adultery. Why the double standards by the US ?
4. The day after UN chemical weapons inspectors arrived in damascus in 2013, there was a chemical weapons attack in damascus. The US stated that the attack was undertaken by the government, but has never produced a shred of evidence to this effect. When a UN spokesperson gave an unscheduled press conference and said that the UN's evidence was that chemical attacks were being carried out by the rebels, and there was no evidence of chemical attacks by the government, it was quickly brushed under the carpet. Why would the Syrian government carry out a chemical weapons attack the day after inspectors arrived in the city, and whyhas the US never produced evidence that it did, when it claimed it had such evidence ?
5. After the 2013 chemical incident, the US and UN and others declared Assad a war criminal. Why has the US President not been declared a war criminal after the recent bombing by IS forces of a hospital in afghanistan in which patients burned to death in their beds ?
6. After the first Iraq war, the UN imposed sanctions on iraq, that are accepted to have caused the death of 500,000 children in iraq. The sanctions served no benefit. When the US secretary of state was asked at the time whether she thought half a million child deaths were "worth it", she said (of the US and the UN), "we think they are worth it". Do you think this is an action of the good guys ?
7. The US's main ally in the region in the 70s was the Shah of Iran. The Shah ran a secular state in which the population was largely free to do as it wanted so long as it did not get involved in politics. Severe punishment awaited those who got involved in actions which could lead to a coup against the government. In many ways then, the Shah was very similar to President Assad of Syria. Yet the US supported the Shah to the hilt, and opposes Assad to the same degree. Why do you think this is ?
As the board's authority on such matters, would you be good enough to advise us on the following :
1. Both the US and Russia are actively involved in Syria. Russia is involved at the request of its ally the syrian government. The US is involved for example by supplying resources and arms to syrian rebels, by training syrian rebels, and by arranging political opposition to president assad. Russia is there because it is a long term ally of Syria who has asked for its assistance. Why is America there ? And on what basis is Russia the imperial adventurist, rather than the US ?
2. The US and Saudi have stated that Assad can not remain president in Syria. What business is it of theirs ?
3. The US asserts that the reason for its involvement in Syria is that it is opposed to human rights abuses by president assad. And yet, the US's main ally in the region (aside from israel), is Saudi Arabia. Not only do they work together in their battle against Assad, but Saudi is the US's main trading partner in the region. Saudi buys billions of dollars of arms from the US annually, and did the biggest arms deal in human history with US the year before the war in syria broke out. And yet, not only are there far far less freedoms in Saudi than there ever were in Syria, but Saudi has the worst human rights record of any country on the planet, having a criminal justice system akin to that of ISIS, punishment by amputation for theft, and death by stoning for adultery. Why the double standards by the US ?
4. The day after UN chemical weapons inspectors arrived in damascus in 2013, there was a chemical weapons attack in damascus. The US stated that the attack was undertaken by the government, but has never produced a shred of evidence to this effect. When a UN spokesperson gave an unscheduled press conference and said that the UN's evidence was that chemical attacks were being carried out by the rebels, and there was no evidence of chemical attacks by the government, it was quickly brushed under the carpet. Why would the Syrian government carry out a chemical weapons attack the day after inspectors arrived in the city, and whyhas the US never produced evidence that it did, when it claimed it had such evidence ?
5. After the 2013 chemical incident, the US and UN and others declared Assad a war criminal. Why has the US President not been declared a war criminal after the recent bombing by IS forces of a hospital in afghanistan in which patients burned to death in their beds ?
6. After the first Iraq war, the UN imposed sanctions on iraq, that are accepted to have caused the death of 500,000 children in iraq. The sanctions served no benefit. When the US secretary of state was asked at the time whether she thought half a million child deaths were "worth it", she said (of the US and the UN), "we think they are worth it". Do you think this is an action of the good guys ?
7. The US's main ally in the region in the 70s was the Shah of Iran. The Shah ran a secular state in which the population was largely free to do as it wanted so long as it did not get involved in politics. Severe punishment awaited those who got involved in actions which could lead to a coup against the government. In many ways then, the Shah was very similar to President Assad of Syria. Yet the US supported the Shah to the hilt, and opposes Assad to the same degree. Why do you think this is ?
Last edited:
