EPTOn September 13 2013 05:26 zatic wrote:
This is really getting off topic.
Back to Syria please.
This is really getting off topic.
Back to Syria please.
I hope USA doesn't go into it.
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 153
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
I hope USA doesn't go into it. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
Lo there do I see my country being embarrassed by second-rate dictators. Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call me, bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Congress. Where the foolish may live forever. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/12/tag-team-assad-joins-putin-in-pressing-obama-to-drop-syria-strike-threat/ The brilliance of Sun Tzu is truly on display here, huh? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 13 2013 04:55 DeepElemBlues wrote: List them please for both so we can at least act like what you're saying isn't just hate and has some actual basis Also roflmao the "you're not altruists so you're bad" argument. Is it fun to live in fantasia? Even Congresscritters aren't stupid enough to do something so stupid. Why would we want to do something so incredibly short sighted and stupid So China and everybody else in East Asia can beat their chests even harder and make even more faces at each other? So India and Pakistan can go back to doing the maybe we'll have a major war maybe not tango? So the African Union can be left drifting in the wind against the Shabaab and in its other peacekeeping missions? So Israel and Iran can finally duke it out? So Egypt can go full metal jacket on Islamists whether they're peaceful or not? So Jordan can become another Syria? So Colombia can be left on its own to face FARC and the drug lords and the nations in S. America like Venezuela who aid and abet them? So Europe can lose the only leverage - its American alliance - it has over Russia? So Europe can lose more than half of what makes Europe relevant internationally? Without the American alliance Europe collectively is a second-rate economic power and a 4th-rate military power. Tensions rise in East Asia Tensions rise in Central Asia Tensions rise in Mediterranean Africa and sub-Saharan Africa More violence in sub-Saharan Africa Tensions rise between Russia and the former USSR republics and between Russia and the EU The EU loses its international clout Dictators in the Middle East become more brutal as they either turn to Russia/China to be their patrons or left on their own think they have to be more brutal to keep in control More civil wars in the Middle East The UN dies. The UN can't survive as a meaningful and effective organization in a world where the two most active great powers are China and Russia. Europe can't keep the UN going on its own. If the last 70 years are the results of rampant US militarism (defense of South Korea, collapse of the USSR, the lowest level of wars and violence in modern history), clearly we need more of it. They do it dirtier so why is that a good thing? Apologize for what? Carrying their water for them? Back off from what? Carrying their water for them? Pissed off, so what. They should be concerned about pissing us off. Not the other way around. I don't see why you and so many people are so interested in turning the world over to Russia and China and turning the EU into a nonentity and thinking things will go okay. It's a fool's errand. Because oh no it's not safe to be an American outside of America - compared to what? The Cold War? It was a lot less safer then to be an American outside of America... And all that animosity! Compared to what? There was a lot more animosity towards America in between 1946 and 1991 than there is now, somehow we managed to survive just fine. The day a country bases its policy on what foreigners like is the day that country declares its ready to roll over and get screwed until its used up. Cutting our military budget doesn't automatically mean that Russia/China overtake us. Our military budget is so bloated and overcompensating that we still make those countries look like a joke. And who the fuck cares if the EU doesn't have any military leverage without us? Maybe they need to step it the fuck up and stop having us do most of their work for them. Maybe the rest of the world needs to do that. Sure, don't cut the budget by 50% all in one go (that is obviously impossible to do), but a steady reduction in military budget is not only possible, but is healthier for the economy long-term and healthier for both our foreign and domestic policies long-term. Your hypothetical scenarios (and your recollection of history) are pulled out of your ass and make a huge number of assumptions that have no basis in reality. A significant reduction in our military budget is not only possible, but is definitely a good course of action. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10130 Posts
Except Assad is not a kid, and chemical weapons are not toys. I am already tired of this political game of stupidity. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
It's really one of those points where if you're so outraged at Assad, and convinced he needs to be punished, then please, by all means, YOU go over there and punish him. Don't demand other people all across the planet die because your political-conviction-of-the-day compels it. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 13 2013 08:24 Leporello wrote: I'm really tired of people who very well might not even be American, let alone be a member of our armed forces who must risk their lives for this, making militaristic demands of our country. It's really one of those points where if you're so outraged at Assad, and convinced he needs to be punished, then please, by all means, YOU go over there and punish him. Don't demand other people all across the planet die because your political-conviction-of-the-day compels it. One man can't do it alone. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
No, but there seem to be enough international warmongers clamoring for this that if they all banned together, maybe they could make a difference. And then it'd be people dying for their own convictions, as opposed to that disgusting act of asking other people to die for it. Don't advocate for a country you don't live in to declare war on a country you don't live in. Don't act like it's your brothers and friends that are going to die and risk their lives for what you happen to think is right, based on your limited information. Think about it. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On September 13 2013 07:53 a176 wrote: So am I the only one here displeased with "the diplomatic outcome"? Are we not going to hand out punishment for gassing a thousand civilians? women, children? Nope, because "we" can't be trusted. Better to do nothing than let a dysfunctional and deceitful government start launching bombs. Even if you don't think the administration is criminal, which in the case of the NSA I believe it is, it certainly isn't functional enough to warrant confidence in starting a war. How many chances do you give people before you stop trusting them? To me they've done enough already. Innaction in foreign policy seems like a great "change". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10130 Posts
On September 13 2013 08:24 Leporello wrote: I'm really tired of people who very well might not even be American, let alone be a member of our armed forces who must risk their lives for this, making militaristic demands of our country. It's really one of those points where if you're so outraged at Assad, and convinced he needs to be punished, then please, by all means, YOU go over there and punish him. Don't demand other people all across the planet die because your political-conviction-of-the-day compels it. I was already on Kosovo, and this kind of things like Somalia or Rwanda is why i joined the army back in the 00's. Where have you been ? And i am not asking anything from your country, but the international politics to stop playing a retarded child's game just to save face. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On September 13 2013 08:53 Godwrath wrote: I was already on Kosovo, and this kind of things like Somalia or Rwanda is why i joined the army back in the 00's. Where have you been ? And i am not asking anything from your country, but the international politics to stop playing a retarded child's game just to save face. Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours. Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led -- that's already been firmly established. Without America, you don't have anyone in international politics doing anything at all, let alone playing a "retarded child's game". Without our threats, there is no game at all. Here's Spain's de-facto contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619 How's that for a retarded child's game? How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks. It seems to me that Europe is much more involved in this than America, and yet when push comes to shove, we're the ones who're supposed to do the large-scale dying and killing. Given that, I'm not sure why your opinion shouldn't be immediately dismissed. You should just be grateful we're doing anything at all about this, given our country's natural war exhaustion. This isn't Kosovo, and this isn't 1999. This is America's choice, as despite all the international war-mongers on this board, America is the only one actually threatening Syria. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Cutting our military budget doesn't automatically mean that Russia/China overtake us. Our military budget is so bloated and overcompensating that we still make those countries look like a joke. Cut it by how much though? The proposition given was 50%. And it's not a matter of Russia or China "overtaking" us, it's a matter of us not being able to exert influence so they will instead. And who the fuck cares if the EU doesn't have any military leverage without us? Maybe they need to step it the fuck up and stop having us do most of their work for them. Maybe the rest of the world needs to do that. Sure, don't cut the budget by 50% all in one go (that is obviously impossible to do), but a steady reduction in military budget is not only possible, but is healthier for the economy long-term and healthier for both our foreign and domestic policies long-term. The problem is that they won't. You really think your average European is going to support increasing their own military's size when they bitch so much about ours? Their political identity is based on being angrily against all of that. So are we supposed to cut ourselves down to satisfy people who won't pick up the slack? Your hypothetical scenarios (and your recollection of history) are pulled out of your ass and make a huge number of assumptions that have no basis in reality. You don't know what you're talking about, and I don't care about your opinion if you're just going to offer it with nothing to back it up. What stopped India and Pakistan from fighting a major war in 1999 What has stopped Israel from attacking Iran What power restricts at least just a little bit the eagerness of China and the other East Asian nations for going at each other's throats over control of rocks in the seas over there and the resources below Throw out mindless rejection all you want there isn't a serious person who thinks that the world would not get more violent and have more crises and flare-ups and stare-downs if the US said "whatever we're fucking out" and went away. A significant reduction in our military budget is not only possible, but is definitely a good course of action. "" | ||
|
imperator-xy
Germany1366 Posts
On September 13 2013 07:53 a176 wrote: So am I the only one here displeased with "the diplomatic outcome"? Are we not going to hand out punishment for gassing a thousand civilians? women, children? First we should find out who actually launched that chemical weapons attack. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On September 13 2013 09:22 imperator-xy wrote: First we should find out who actually launched that chemical weapons attack. It is not only because of the CW attack, other war crimes have been committed by Assad forces (Deliberately bombing schools, the use of cluster bombs in crowded areas, Napalm against civilians, mass civilian killings, etc, etc, etc) and Al Nusra (genocidal mass killings, wide spread torture against civilians), sadly the only ones that we can get to justice is Assad's generals and government officials, and even without counting the CW attack (if they where the ones that did it) they would end up quite a few years in prison. On September 13 2013 09:08 Leporello wrote: Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours. Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led. That's already been firmly established. Here's Spains contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619 How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks. It seems to me that Europe is much more involved in this than America, and yet when push comes to shove, we're the ones who're supposed to the dying and killing. Given that, I'm not sure why your opinion shouldn't be immediately dismissed. This isn't Kosovo, and this isn't 1999. This is America's choice, and America is tired of fighting other people's wars. No this isn't Kosovo, this is 2013 and if US don't intervene the US allies in the middle east will suffer the consequences of having an even stronger Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in the area. So now you will tell me "hey but why don't they invade Syria themselves?!" well, they can't, Israel can't act because they are hated by Iran and since they are so close to Iran, Iran could retaliate, Turkey it is not in condition to invade Syria, and Jordan, well, it is Jordan there's not much they can do, and about this new US "ally" Irak, it find himself in a worst political situation than Turkey so there isn't any real mid east US ally that could invade Syria, and France does not have the power that the US has to do so. The only country that find himself in the situation where it has the tools to attack and the political reasons to do so is the US, that's it there aren't any other countries with the power nor the reasons. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On September 13 2013 09:54 Uvantak wrote: It is not only because of the CW attack, other war crimes have been committed by Assad forces (Deliberately bombing schools, the use of cluster bombs in crowded areas, Napalm against civilians, mass civilian killings, etc, etc, etc) and Al Nusra (genocidal mass killings, wide spread torture against civilians), sadly the only ones that we can get to justice is Assad's generals and government officials, and even without counting the CW attack (if they where the ones that did it) they would end up quite a few years in prison. No this isn't Kosovo, this is 2013 and if US don't intervene the US allies in the middle east will suffer the consequences of having an even stronger Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in the area. So now you will tell me "hey but why don't they invade Syria themselves?!" well, they can't, Israel can't act because they are hated by Iran and since they are so close to Iran, Iran could retaliate, Turkey it is not in condition to invade Syria, and Jordan, well, it is Jordan there's not much they can do, and about this new US "ally" Irak, it find himself in a worst political situation than Turkey so there isn't any real mid east US ally that could invade Syria, and France does not have the power that the US has to do so. The only country that find himself in the situation where it has the tools to attack and the political reasons to do so is the US, that's it there aren't any other countries with the power nor the reasons. Assad isn't Al-Qaeda, the rebels however are slightly aligned with Al Qaeda, and we're currently supplying those Al Qaeda with American weapons... Which is disgusting in itself. I think you're confused as to who we're supposed to be fighting. We're not threatening the rebels or their Al Qaeda allies. We're helping them. Neither side in this civil war are good guys. You guys want to "punish Assad", because you're all so convinced he's the primo bad guy in this equation -- you have no FUCKING CLUE as to what kind of shit storm we might be creating. If the rebels didn't use chemical weapons it's because they don't have any. That's the only moral difference in this war. “There is serious concern that if Assad falls, the extremist wings of the rebel movement will fill the vacuum and take over Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons,” said Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. In written testimony, Mr. Joscelyn told the House panel Tuesday, “These same al Qaeda-affiliated forces have fought alongside Free Syrian Army brigades. There is no clear geographic dividing line between the most extreme fighters and other rebels.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/analysts-counter-claims-on-number-of-al-qaeda-amon/ How much fun is that? Let's kill the bad guy and drop some bombs, and then everything will be better? Wrong. By "righteously punishing the evil-doer", we're actually giving Al-Qaeda a possible road to controlling Syria and all of its weapons. And, again, just because you say America is the only that can do anything, doesn't mean it's obligated to do anything. You list a slew of excuses for several countries. Here's another one: America is the country that just finished (but not really) fighting two simultaneous wars in the Middle-East. Not France, or Turkey or any of those countries you mentioned. But regardless, I do recognize that America is the only one actually threatening Syria. As such, America will be the one that has to back up those threats. So the international war-mongering peanut-gallery should try to find some restrain and respect. I honestly think some of you guys just really want to see an American-led World War. If you really want to value human life, stop worrying about the dead and punishment, and start worrying about the living. (Yes, I just loosely quoted Gandalf, deal with it). Then again, it's not you or your countrymen that'll be fighting. Yet. It takes a special kind of pretentiousness to advocate for a war which your country isn't going to be involved in, let alone you won't be fighting in. It's not something I, for one, would ever do. And it's not something that America, as a country, has ever done. That's that exceptionalism Obama was talking about in Tuesday's address. | ||
|
Malgox
6 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On September 13 2013 09:54 Uvantak wrote: No this isn't Kosovo, this is 2013 and if US don't intervene the US allies in the middle east will suffer the consequences of having an even stronger Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in the area. So now you will tell me "hey but why don't they invade Syria themselves?!" well, they can't, Israel can't act because they are hated by Iran and since they are so close to Iran, Iran could retaliate, Turkey it is not in condition to invade Syria, and Jordan, well, it is Jordan there's not much they can do, and about this new US "ally" Irak, it find himself in a worst political situation than Turkey so there isn't any real mid east US ally that could invade Syria, and France does not have the power that the US has to do so. The only country that find himself in the situation where it has the tools to attack and the political reasons to do so is the US, that's it there aren't any other countries with the power nor the reasons. You may need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. "Political reasons" are irrelevant in the context of the quoted discussion. If someone is giving the US flak for not getting involved, then one assumes that person wants someone helping in the war against Assad. If that person wants someone helping in the war against Assad, that person should look to their own country first if they want to sacrifice lives in some world-police military action. Now there are a couple ways this scenario can branch out from this point: 1. The person's country is unable to participate due to being a weak nation. They can insult the US at that point, but they shouldn't bash the country into the ground. You can't empathize or understand what it feels like to be the US if you've never actually been in their situation. It's easy to have an idealized image of what the US is capable of doing when they seem to have so much more than you do. I'm not saying everyone outside of the West has no idea what the US is like, because that would be stupid, but there's good odds you're a lot more wrong than you think you are. 2. The person's country is unable to participate due to having a neglected military that does not reflect their position in the world. A lot of Europe falls into this category. First world economy, first world society, not-so first world military might. If the person also lives in a democratic country (which they should if they fall into this category), they have the right to shut the fuck up about the US. If you voted people into office who decided against building up the military, you shouldn't bitch about some other nation not sacrificing their people to fight a war you decided to be too weak to fight. You live in a democracy. You want to play world police? Sacrifice your own damn people. 3. The person's country is unable to participate due to the majority of the country not wishing to participate. If this happens, it makes even less sense to bash the US. "Most of the people in my country don't care about Syria, so fuck USA!" If your own country doesn't want to fight in Syria, bash your own country. Bemoan their lack of empathy, whine about they just don't give a shit about Syria. Bashing the US in this circumstance is like getting rear-ended in a car crash and then blaming the responding police officer. The US doesn't have anything to do with your people not caring about Syria. + Show Spoiler + I'm not saying any of this is actually happening, because I don't know if it is. These scenarios are listed solely to refute faulty points made by the poster I am replying to. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
| ||
