|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war.
To them is a religious war now because they didn't get any help in these last two years and the only ones that really handed help was Al Qaeda, so the real reasons why things are like they are now is because of inaction, see how Lybia is doing now days recovering very slowly but steady, both wars started with A month of difference, one had France/NATO backing up the rebels, the other didn't, one finished eight months after being started, the other is still going with +100.000 deaths and a considerable chunk of the starting civilian rebels are dead or have become extremists because the only way to survive was to get along with people that had better training (Al Nusra/Al Qaeda) and get better training yourself.
The freedom feelings are still there, that's the reason why so many people died here, the big chunk of the population still wants freedom and democracy, but they can't fight the extremists and their ideas alone they need help, western help, that's why i support a small invasion so the NATO troops can get rid of the chemical weapons of syria and help rebuild the country training the future syrian army and rebuilding the country giving stability, otherwise as i have stated many times we will end up with a new Afghanistan post USSR invasion with an awful mix of Rwanda.
|
On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war.
then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution
|
On September 07 2013 23:59 romanianthunder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war. then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution
It doesnt have sharia laws right now.
And kudos to assads propagandamachine for making everyone believe that all the rebels are jihadists.
|
On September 08 2013 00:13 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:59 romanianthunder wrote:On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war. then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution It doesnt have sharia laws right now. And kudos to assads propagandamachine for making everyone believe that all the rebels are jihadists.
jihadist has many meanings.The questions the rebels must answer and have not answered yet( or at least i did not hear them answering is):
1.Do they plan to introduce sharia law after assad is overturned and they come to power
2.If they come to power what are the basic laws and constitution they plan to enforce?Do they include any islamist laws?
Because form what i have red on many sites a lot of organizations such as hammas support the rebels.By the way what do the rebels actually plan to do after assad is overthrown?From what i have seen regarding the rebels(form international webistes) non of them are too keen on human rights/democracy/equality between men and women etc.
|
On September 07 2013 23:59 romanianthunder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war. then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution
Because Palestine worked out so well...
You can not force democracy on a country. It is a complex system of power checks that you can not create in any time frame that we are willing to commit to.
As for the whole "prevent sharia thing" who are we to decide the laws and morals of these people? Are we really so high and mighty that we have the right to impose our beliefs and morality on others through force of arms?
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by.
|
I must love how many of you are uninformed, saying things such as "the same sahira law" when on Assad regimes there is total religious freedom.
But it is even better to see people say things like "wow Assad's propaganda machine" they make people think America support jihadists, or even more that rebels are jihadists, Naaaaaaaaaaah, your government did never do that... because it is Assad and not your gov who is using media to make out propaganda and lie about everything concerning this "war".
You guys, are always on the good side, doesnt matter if that means switching sides every time your economic interests change.
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6054/reagantaliban1985.jpg
|
On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:59 romanianthunder wrote:On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war. then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution Because Palestine worked out so well... You can not force democracy on a country. It is a complex system of power checks that you can not create in any time frame that we are willing to commit to. As for the whole "prevent sharia thing" who are we to decide the laws and morals of these people? Are we really so high and mighty that we have the right to impose our beliefs and morality on others through force of arms? We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by.
Democracy is just a small part regarding syria.The usa does not want to enter syria becuase of democracy but because of human rights violations(chemical weapons,murdered civilians,army vs defenseless civilians etc).And the international community is directly responsible throughout treaties to enforce human rights in certain countries.We learned after the second world war that if we let evil triumph and evolve it can grow to great powers.You can replace sharia laws with nuremberg laws 2.0 and you get the same thing.the only difference between the islamist radicals and nazists is that the current islamists do not have the technological and intellectual capacities of the germans.
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives.
|
On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives.
If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed.
However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs.
There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria
|
1019 Posts
On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria
Are womens' rights "western ideas" that western countries shouldn't "force" on islamic countries? Or are womens' rights "universal ideas" that should be supported by every country? The answer is different depending on who you ask, so it's a very difficult situation.
The root of all the problems in the middle east is (1) religious tradition that goes to the extreme (note: I never said religion itself is bad) and (2) different islamic sects being unable to get along with each other. Just check out iraq where shiite and sunni are blowing each other up every week.
|
On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2013 23:59 romanianthunder wrote:On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war. then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution Because Palestine worked out so well... You can not force democracy on a country. It is a complex system of power checks that you can not create in any time frame that we are willing to commit to. As for the whole "prevent sharia thing" who are we to decide the laws and morals of these people? Are we really so high and mighty that we have the right to impose our beliefs and morality on others through force of arms? We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by. Democracy is just a small part regarding syria.The usa does not want to enter syria becuase of democracy but because of human rights violations(chemical weapons,murdered civilians,army vs defenseless civilians etc).And the international community is directly responsible throughout treaties to enforce human rights in certain countries.We learned after the second world war that if we let evil triumph and evolve it can grow to great powers.You can replace sharia laws with nuremberg laws 2.0 and you get the same thing.the only difference between the islamist radicals and nazists is that the current islamists do not have the technological and intellectual capacities of the germans. Show nested quote +
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives.
People like you talk about stopping chemical weapons usage and human rights.. and yet the United States is hypocritical on both those fronts.
Are the uranium deposits left by bombs in Iraq not considered as damaging to human life as chemical weapons? Say that to the babies with 3 legs.
Setting an example so that 'evil' cannot triumph? How bout the hundreds of thousands killed (directly and indirectly) in illegal wars by the US? Thousands of civvies killed by drone pilots sipping a latte in a cubicle hundreds of miles away? Going by such black and white terms of morality, the 'moral' course of action for the US would be to direct a few tomahawks onto itself.
How fucking old are some of you that still view the world in such binary terms? It's way more about incentives, motivations, politics, than it is fairy tale tropes.
|
On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria
There actually is a win-win scenario.The usa and un forces can condition their support of the rebels on the basis that after assad will get overthrown they will adopt human rights legislation.Otherwise once assad is taken out the un and usa can start searching for potential president candidates form the sirians that actually agree to human rights laws.Note the fact that the rebels fight against assad does not necessarly give them gurantees they will come to power.In siria democracy is just a small part of concerns.human rights and basic human standards of living are far more important on sirian soil than democracy right now.
@xahhk
you seem to forget the hundreds of thousands that died in sadamms politcal prisons and the millions suffering from lack of human rights and basic living conditions under saddam.the american intervention in iraq qas in no way perfect but it did free them form a fate worse than death.And the drones you are tlaking about are striking mostly known terrorist leaders.the only issue in iraq regarding the americans are killings dealt by psychopatic soldiers like the one in afghanistan who went apeshit and killed 14 afghan civilians in a village.
|
On September 08 2013 01:30 romanianthunder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria There actually is a win-win scenario.The usa and un forces can condition their support of the rebels on the basis that after assad will get overthrown they will adopt human rights legislation.Otherwise once assad is taken out the un and usa can start searching for potential president candidates form the sirians that actually agree to human rights laws.Note the fact that the rebels fight against assad does not necessarly give them gurantees they will come to power.In siria democracy is just a small part of concerns.human rights and basic human standards of living are far more important on sirian soil than democracy right now.
And then we invaded a country and instate a puppet government (as you say they need to follow the rules we lay out for them). And yet were the good guys in this?
What gives us the right to invade a nation and pick who gets to rule it?
Morality? Divine Providence? Western Racial Supremacy?
We have no more right to decide for a nation/people how they are governed then they have a right to demand the same of us.
|
United States43565 Posts
On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 23:59 romanianthunder wrote:On September 07 2013 23:30 hzflank wrote:On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote:
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east. How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released. Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war. then it's pointless.assad wil get replaced with assad 2.0.same sharia law,same lack of human rights.it would probably be better if the un will organize that region like they did with palestine back in the 50s.or at least if they interdict sharia law and impose human rights laws in the constitution Because Palestine worked out so well... You can not force democracy on a country. It is a complex system of power checks that you can not create in any time frame that we are willing to commit to. As for the whole "prevent sharia thing" who are we to decide the laws and morals of these people? Are we really so high and mighty that we have the right to impose our beliefs and morality on others through force of arms? We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by.
Actually, yes, we are.
|
On September 08 2013 01:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 01:30 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria There actually is a win-win scenario.The usa and un forces can condition their support of the rebels on the basis that after assad will get overthrown they will adopt human rights legislation.Otherwise once assad is taken out the un and usa can start searching for potential president candidates form the sirians that actually agree to human rights laws.Note the fact that the rebels fight against assad does not necessarly give them gurantees they will come to power.In siria democracy is just a small part of concerns.human rights and basic human standards of living are far more important on sirian soil than democracy right now. And then we invaded a country and instate a puppet government (as you say they need to follow the rules we lay out for them). And yet were the good guys in this? What gives us the right to invade a nation and pick who gets to rule it? Morality? Divine Providence? Western Racial Supremacy? We have no more right to decide for a nation/people how they are governed then they have a right to demand the same of us.
That's all nice and well in the abstract but in cases like Yugoslavia/Libya/Syria where you have one side obviously better equipped than the other and is using state infrastructure to crush a rebellion that at least started legitimately, it seems pretty immoral not to intervene to some extent. Doesn't mean we have to control the government afterwards, just bomb till Assad is willing to step down and continue bombing whatever side doesn't want to settle next.
|
United States43565 Posts
On September 08 2013 01:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 01:30 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria There actually is a win-win scenario.The usa and un forces can condition their support of the rebels on the basis that after assad will get overthrown they will adopt human rights legislation.Otherwise once assad is taken out the un and usa can start searching for potential president candidates form the sirians that actually agree to human rights laws.Note the fact that the rebels fight against assad does not necessarly give them gurantees they will come to power.In siria democracy is just a small part of concerns.human rights and basic human standards of living are far more important on sirian soil than democracy right now. And then we invaded a country and instate a puppet government (as you say they need to follow the rules we lay out for them). And yet were the good guys in this? What gives us the right to invade a nation and pick who gets to rule it? Morality? Divine Providence? Western Racial Supremacy? We have no more right to decide for a nation/people how they are governed then they have a right to demand the same of us.
Moral relativity is the coward's way of excusing inaction in the face of evil. Some things are simply not relative, an absolute truth can be found. A society which does not deny basic rights and freedoms to half of its population is morally superior to one that does not, for example.
|
Saying that western culture is somehow morally superior to others is pretty meh. It's not for us to decide in which values people believe.
|
On September 08 2013 00:30 arChieSC2 wrote:I must love how many of you are uninformed, saying things such as "the same sahira law" when on Assad regimes there is total religious freedom. But it is even better to see people say things like "wow Assad's propaganda machine" they make people think America support jihadists, or even more that rebels are jihadists, Naaaaaaaaaaah, your government did never do that... because it is Assad and not your gov who is using media to make out propaganda and lie about everything concerning this "war". You guys, are always on the good side, doesnt matter if that means switching sides every time your economic interests change. http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6054/reagantaliban1985.jpg
You are aware that the Taliban did not exist in 1985 right? Okay guess not... most of the guys in that picture later created the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.
This is the kind of ignorant shit that gets thrown up against the USA all the time. Doesn't matter if it's total bullshit, a line like "doesnt matter if that means switching sides every time your economic interests change" is too stupid to pass up.
People like you talk about stopping chemical weapons usage and human rights.. and yet the United States is hypocritical on both those fronts.
Yeah sure it is.
Are the uranium deposits left by bombs in Iraq not considered as damaging to human life as chemical weapons? Say that to the babies with 3 legs.
No they are not considered as damaging because they are not as damaging.
Setting an example so that 'evil' cannot triumph? How bout the hundreds of thousands killed (directly and indirectly) in illegal wars by the US? Thousands of civvies killed by drone pilots sipping a latte in a cubicle hundreds of miles away? Going by such black and white terms of morality, the 'moral' course of action for the US would be to direct a few tomahawks onto itself.
What illegal wars? Crying that Iraq was illegal doesn't make it illegal. The law is very important until you need to ignore it to talk shit I guess. What fair legal process ever said Iraq was illegal? You said wars, which other ones?
What thousands of civilians? You are aware of course that about 4,000 people have been killed by drone strikes and the enemy:civilian ratio is 10:1? That's not thousands of dead civilians.
It's funny you talk about black and white terms of morality while you're talking shit on the US Old Testament style, so much for not going by black and white morality.
How fucking old are some of you that still view the world in such binary terms? It's way more about incentives, motivations, politics, than it is fairy tale tropes.
Look in the mirror buddy, your faux-sophistication is a joke.
|
On September 08 2013 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 01:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 01:30 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2013 00:36 romanianthunder wrote:On September 08 2013 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
We can support the people if they wish it, we can offer help and advise if they wish it but it is up to them to decide the forms of governance and morality that they live by
If the people we want to support want to live their lives by denigrating women and keeping them in a slave like situation while harboring hate for the jews we can not support them.The international community must condition support for the rebels on the basis they will construct a society based on human rights and equality for law regardless of dumb muslim traditions.If after they come to power the rebels do exactly like assad then we are wasting,money,time and human lives. If we disagree with there morals/laws we dont support them I agree with you on that. I also agree that we should try to help in situations like this where chemical weapons are used and lots of civilians are killed. However. you cant intervene military without replacing Assad. However once you do your forcing western beliefs on them through force of arms or your giving the country to the, seemingly mostly Islamic, rebels which then go's against our own beliefs. There is no scenario for military intervention where something doesn't end up screwed. Thats the whole problem with the situation in Syria There actually is a win-win scenario.The usa and un forces can condition their support of the rebels on the basis that after assad will get overthrown they will adopt human rights legislation.Otherwise once assad is taken out the un and usa can start searching for potential president candidates form the sirians that actually agree to human rights laws.Note the fact that the rebels fight against assad does not necessarly give them gurantees they will come to power.In siria democracy is just a small part of concerns.human rights and basic human standards of living are far more important on sirian soil than democracy right now. And then we invaded a country and instate a puppet government (as you say they need to follow the rules we lay out for them). And yet were the good guys in this? What gives us the right to invade a nation and pick who gets to rule it? Morality? Divine Providence? Western Racial Supremacy? We have no more right to decide for a nation/people how they are governed then they have a right to demand the same of us. Moral relativity is the coward's way of excusing inaction in the face of evil. Some things are simply not relative, an absolute truth can be found. A society which does not deny basic rights and freedoms to half of its population is morally superior to one that does not, for example.
A society which does not deny basic rights of half its population but terrorizes and kills people in other societies using its own definition of what's 'right' is morally superior?
|
Anyone who believes the USA is willing to enter the conflict because of ''human rights violations'' is gravely mistaken. They simply have their own interests and they are pursuing them under the veil of human rights an democracy. Like they always did...
|
A society which does not deny basic rights of half its population but terrorizes and kills people in other societies using its own definition of what's 'right' is morally superior?
Yes, a society that does not brutalize half its population and terrorizes and kills fascists in societies that breed fascists like locusts, who then proceed to terrorize and kill in their own societies and others, is morally superior. That's not a hard conclusion to draw for someone who is not morally obtuse.
Anyone who believes the USA is willing to enter the conflict because of ''human rights violations'' is gravely mistaken. They simply have their own interests and they are pursuing them under the veil of human rights an democracy. Like they always did...
You're damn right human rights violations aren't enough to go bomb a country over especially when people rage and foam at the mouth over it. Why would firefighters try to put out a house fire if there were a thousand people in their faces screaming that no one appointed them to take care of fires and they only want to stop that fire so they can loot the house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
