SYRIA

Posts

Pages: first 1234 next last
Happy
Devil's in the details
5367
Why isn't anyone talking about it here? I'm pretty interested on peoples' stances on it here.

Are you for or against an assault against Assad's regime?
I obviously don't know much, but I'm against it just for the fact that I don't like war especially when it's making other countries angry at the US. Our government probably has some secret proof that the government of Syria DID do what it was accused of due to the general adamant language they're using. Though in the end it's much less ambiguous if we're doing the right thing if we convince other countries to help instead of pretend we're the cowboys of the world like we always do.

IE; Get support -> Help Syria

Sorry if you're from another country, this is very much an uninformed murican's point of view and it most likely doesn't apply to you.
Well I know very little about it. Only that it has been constantly brewing in the news for what seems an eternity. Though I guess it more recently is in the forefront again.

But from what I understand it is a civil war and civil wars are problematic. I don't know which side is in the right or exactly what they represent. All I see are all kinds of people suffering which is horrible and I hope that the UN does what it can to get humanitarian aid in place.

But I'm not sure foreign intervention is the right thing to do in a civil war. Of course I guess it depends on if they are asking for it or not. But a civil war is after all a purely... domestic affair...
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
if (UN_confirms_Syria_chem_wep_use == true)
{
declare_war_to_deter_further_chem_wep_use
}
else
{
no_proper_cause_for_waging_war
}

Or for those that don't program, we have no proper cause for waging war on Syria until the UN confirms without any doubt that Syria did in fact use chemical weapons.
On the other hand attacking a country that is in civil war is something I tend to always do in strategy games. Because it's so much easier to take a province or two when they're already fighting!

But yeah I guess you do need a casus belli, otherwise the stability hit is massive...
Yeah, if chemical weapons were used, tear them a new asshole.

I don't know the details of this civil war, though. Wars depress me and I generally stay away.
Technically the U.S. has support from countries, but there's really only 4 countries making this a bad idea. (China, and Russia, and 2 countries in the middle east)
I smell World War III coming.
author=Gourd_Clae
I obviously don't know much, but I'm against it just for the fact that I don't like war especially when it's making other countries angry at the US. Our government probably has some secret proof that the government of Syria DID do what it was accused of due to the general adamant language they're using. Though in the end it's much less ambiguous if we're doing the right thing if we convince other countries to help instead of pretend we're the cowboys of the world like we always do.

IE; Get support -> Help Syria

Sorry if you're from another country, this is very much an uninformed murican's point of view and it most likely doesn't apply to you.


Lol, what? Yeah, just like they had proof of Iraqs WMDs. America no longer has any credibility left. Last time, the US and it's allies (Saudi arabia, Britain, Qatar , Israel etc). accused the Syrian regime of using chemical weapons, the UN conducted inspections, turned around and said, no it was likely America and Natos boys (i.e. Al-qaeda and the rebels) that used chemical weapons.

What motive would Assad have of using chemical weapons when he knows that all it's going to do is attract widespread attention and pave the way for an invasion? Especially at a time when the syrian army's been making a lot of gains.

America and its allies' boys (Al-qaeda and the rebels) have been caught with chemical weapons MULTIPLE times. There are videos of the rebels bragging about killing a rabbit with chemical weapons among other things.

My position is clear. NO WAR ON SYRIA. Since when does the US care about chemical weapons use, when their ally (Israel) has used chemical weapons on Palestine and Lebanon? The US has also used chemical weapons on Iraq.

The US has been supporting al-qaeda (Mujahideen who later became al-qaeda and yes that includes Osamabin laden) since the 1980's. Learn something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Nothing surprises me any-more. It's obvious, that they're simply looking for a pretext to invade.
@bigbadke12 I mean we should get complete support from all countries in the UN - hopefully this would persuade the US to not attack or it would at least not be frowned upon by other countries because, yeah, I'm not exactly in the mood for WW3 this week.
I am 100% in favor of the Assad regime and the preservation of Syrian sovereignty.

Reason #1 : Assad's regime is exercising it's nation's sovereign right to defend itself. The Free Syrian Army is primarily made up of foreign aggressors funded by third parties. Contrary to what you might have heard, this is NOT a civil war, but a real life foreign invasion using proxy forces.

Reason #2 : Assad has NOT used chemical weapons. All reports of such have been "unconfirmed" for months until now, and will remain "unconfirmed" for months to come. Meanwhile, rebel forces using chemical weapons has been confirmed repeatedly.
With a little intuitive consideration you should be able to tell that, because Assad's unconfirmed chemical attacks are hyped while rebel confirmed attacks are downplayed, you are being flat-out lied to.

Reason #3 : The Free Syrian Army are a bunch of savages. Nevermind the fact that they want to replace a functioning democratic state with the kind of Islamist theocracy that executes children for offhand remarks.
They're also cannibals. You can google "Free Syrian Army Cannibalism" if you want to watch something disgusting.

I have plenty more reasons, but I think you get the idea. The only reason Syria is making headlines in a bigger-than-usual way is because the Free Syrian Army is on the verge of total annihilation, and the neocons want Assad out. If the FSA is wiped out, there's nobody to "aid", and all that's left is good old fashioned "send in the troops".

It's okay to lay low and not get politically active, but you should at least have the common sense to recognize that we, in the western world, are imperialist aggressors.
Also keep in mind that, in supporting a Syrian "intervention", you support sending Feldschlacht IV there.
Also keep in mind that, in supporting a Syrian "intervention", you support sending Feldschlacht IV there.

haha The best reason of them all. "Make games, not war"
I learned a lot today! Thanks!
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
What's happening is that American Democrats, who will blindly defend Obama no matter what, are scrambling to find a logical justification for this. The same Democrats who, rightfully, vehemently opposed Bush's military interventionism.

The vast majority of Americans are opposed to this. Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists, Right-leaning Liberals, all opposed. It seems only the most staunch and fanatical Democrats support this new Obama war.

Nobel Peace Prize means shit now.

Also, here come the Democrats trying to justify this new Obama war. In 3... 2...
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
I'm not convinced they even have the evidence they claim to. I become skeptical of any situation where the facts are hidden from us and all we see are photos of dead children.
Isrieri
"My father told me this would happen."
6155
I hardly know anything about the circumstances surrounding the U.S's involvement with this chemical weapons debacle, but I do believe that any wars we can stay out of, we probably should. Fighting to oust a regime without enough convincing evidence was obviously a bad idea in the past that should not be repeated again.

Plus, I'm far too suspicious of precisely what political reasons Congress may have for pushing the issue. No one really wants to go to war over breaches in treaties - it's for some sort of profit and that's always the reason.
This is just sad. Unlike the conflicts in Afghanistan & Iraq where the US’ involvement in both of those wars were rather questionable and unjust, the Syrian conflict has been going on for about two years now and is a terrible calamity against humanity (the UN’s confirmation of chemical attacks is just even more proof of that).

I don’t necessarily blame the United States for the lack of action or unwavering response considering that President Obama should be focusing on rebuilding the American economy and trying to pay off the massive debt – not by going into another conflict and getting the US into even more financial mishap. The problem is that a lot of countries, like Great Britain, are in a somewhat economy recession, too, and just simply don’t have the funding or the necessary resources to get involved. I also suppose that if most of these wealthy countries would stop spending money on such useless extravagances that there would be enough money to help these people out.

Also – where the hell is “China” & “Russia” in all this? The Syrian conflict is more closer to home over there that they should also be getting involved, too – not just the west. But since the Chinese & Russians are pumping weapons in for both sides for this war, why would they even care?

This is such a big mess that I’m ashamed at all parties involved. Hundreds of people are dying over there because of this evil dictator that this shit will probably continue on for another couple of years. Unbelievable.

I feel bad for Obama. If he doesn’t go in, the Republicans will be attacking him on this issue for years, and years despite the fact that it was probably the right thing to do. If he does go in, then the debt ceiling will rise and the Republicans will attack him on THAT. Ugh (no win situation here)...

And what about the “United Arab Nations?” Why aren’t they doing anything? Oh, because they simply just don’t give two shits.

I’m disgusted about this whole thing.

And, you know what, it’s going to get a lot more worse before it gets much better.
I didn't really care much about this, since there are more important things at the moment. Can't they just wait for the UN to confirm the investigation, or at least the U.S. could take a break from these pointless wars? Obama could have given the okay to bomb Syria, but he waited for Congress, because he actually gives a crap about what other people think.

China and Russia, I think they need to look in the mirror before they judge anyone else. Now that Britain is officially out, and France refused to go in without a coalition, just let them solve their problem. I don't think this could lead to WW3, the same thing was said about North Korea, and that eventually became a joke. :D

author=Bill Maher
Can't we at least just sit one of the wars out? I mean, we are basically arming Al-Qaeda.

I think the White House should seek this man for advice. XD

author=harmonic
What's happening is that American Democrats, who will blindly defend Obama no matter what, are scrambling to find a logical justification for this. The same Democrats who, rightfully, vehemently opposed Bush's military interventionism.

The vast majority of Americans are opposed to this. Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists, Right-leaning Liberals, all opposed. It seems only the most staunch and fanatical Democrats support this new Obama war.

Nobel Peace Prize means shit now.

Also, here come the Democrats trying to justify this new Obama war. In 3... 2...

Bill Maher: Democrat, opposed the intervention.
John McCain: Republican, supported the intervention.

I think I caught a troll bait... :P I was surprised to see Bill Clinton supporting the war, though. But then again, Obama has yet to make the final call.

author=Vegeta's wife
Btw, EVEN MUSLIMS don't like Obama.

Right... Since when do they ever like anyone, except for their imaginary friend on the sky? :O

author=Addit
I feel bad for Obama. If he doesn’t go in, the Republicans will be attacking him on this issue for years, and years despite the fact that it was probably the right thing to do. If he does go in, then the debt ceiling will rise and the Republicans will attack him on THAT. Ugh (no win situation here)...

Win situation = Stay home and find something else to do. Republicans will always attack him no matter what he does, so he needs to learn to use an earplug. :)

Anyway, the bottom line is, I just want to wait for the UN and Congress to respond. And the White House really has no concrete evidence at the moment. But nevertheless, I think Obama needs to forget about this mess and focuses on improving the country. Unless he is crazy, I don't think he would risk his reputation, knowing that most of the people won't support him to go to war.
author=Solitayre
I'm not convinced they even have the evidence they claim to. I become skeptical of any situation where the facts are hidden from us and all we see are photos of dead children.

This often happens in the news. Ever seen Wag The Dog? I'm also pretty convinced that the shooting during the airing of Batman was a complete hoax, due to the fact that the news tape reels I saw didn't appear to produce the event (if it had been an actual event, someone would've whipped out their camera phone and shot a picture. Yes, while fleeing or even at the risk of their life. Because people are perverse like that) but were instead long shots of the general area.

Why you ask, would there be a hoax of a film that Obama doesn't want his daughters to go see? Because Obama doesn't want his daughters to go see it. The last Batman film drew parallels between Obama and the Joker. And the one in question draws even more parallels between Bane's mentality and Obama. Let's not get embarrassing questions from my daughters.


When even goofballs on Rush Limbaugh notice it, that's pretty sad.

Pages: first 1234 next last