|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:
Israel has 0 interest in getting involved, thats why they concoted a plan that removes them from the equation that lets all the durty work to the US.
You're missing the point. Why would Israel want to do what you said you think they did? Does Israel want to Assad to win? Does Israel want the rebels to win? Does it matter to them? Do they even have to take any action at all?
The US was basically arranging a multilateral coalition to go in there and basically bomb syria and bully them around without any UN aproval. They also ignored the UN proceedings and lied in Lybia when they claimed they were only enforcing a no fly zone, but in truth they were heavily bombing the place.
The US hasn't done anything in Syria, yet. As for Libya....
I dont know how the rest of the world feels, but over the last 10 years I came to realize that we either have the UN or dont have nothing, trusting a single country to keep the evil in the world at bay has not worked, and will not work in the future.
Also, if you are gonna judge other countries on the UN for their past actions, then the world has the duty of never forgetting every single mistake americans ever made, and judge them all of it.
So what exactly do you want? You complain when the US acts unilaterally, and you also complain when the UN does nothing. Has it ever occurred to you that the only time that the UN has even done anything is at the behest of the US?
The simple reality is this: every country in the world has competing interests. Because of that, you will almost never have absolute cooperation in the UN. The best that can be done is for countries like the US to form coalitions to achieve common goals.
|
On September 14 2013 04:32 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:26 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events. Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ? What last events are you talking about exacly? On 26 August, rebel forces took over the village of Khanasir in Aleppo governorate. The strategic village was the government's last supply route for the contested city of Aleppo. On 8 September, rebels led by al-Nusra Front captured the Christian town of Maaloula, 43 km north of Damascus Afaik the rebels already lost the christian village
Didnt lose they just decided not to fight there,but it shows its much worse for Assad if the Rebels can conquer a village,which is only 48 km away from your Stronghold.
|
|
|
On September 14 2013 03:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh? Cool, it's a world issue. So where the fuck is the rest of the world? When the rest of the world makes comparable sacrifices to take action, I will be more than happy to get shipped out to Syria and not complain. Until then, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed off when it's me and a bunch of other Americans taking the brunt of the action and sacrifices to do what the world wants to see.
The rest of the world is trying to figure out what to do. You speak of "comparable sacrifices" what do you mean? Aside from their tax dollars going towards the military, what sacrifices are you referring to that the American people are making specifically? I think the real sacrifice here is that of the Syrian people, would you not agree? They are either, sacrificing their lives, their homeland, or their dignity.
More importantly the USA will never be nation-building in Syria like they tried in Afghanistan and Iraq, they know now that this is not a skill they possess. ***IF*** they attack it will be swift, and brutal. The real sacrifices will be made by the people from the UN, the Arab League, and other constructive countries after the fighting to try and stabilize Syria.
Do you think that American soldiers will be actually deployed? I for one certainly do not. I fail to see the American sacrifice being made that you speak of, please enlighten me, sir.
|
On September 14 2013 04:38 cem61 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:32 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:26 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events. Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ? What last events are you talking about exacly? On 26 August, rebel forces took over the village of Khanasir in Aleppo governorate. The strategic village was the government's last supply route for the contested city of Aleppo. On 8 September, rebels led by al-Nusra Front captured the Christian town of Maaloula, 43 km north of Damascus Afaik the rebels already lost the christian village Didnt lose they just decided not to fight there,but it shows its much worse for Assad if the Rebels can conquer a village,which is only 48 km away from your Stronghold.
Nan it doesnt
Assad is doing great and he will win without external support
|
On September 14 2013 04:50 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:38 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:32 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:26 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events. Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ? What last events are you talking about exacly? On 26 August, rebel forces took over the village of Khanasir in Aleppo governorate. The strategic village was the government's last supply route for the contested city of Aleppo. On 8 September, rebels led by al-Nusra Front captured the Christian town of Maaloula, 43 km north of Damascus Afaik the rebels already lost the christian village Didnt lose they just decided not to fight there,but it shows its much worse for Assad if the Rebels can conquer a village,which is only 48 km away from your Stronghold. Nan it doesnt Assad is doing great and he will win without external support
Besides the support Iran, Hizbollah and Russia are giving Assad, you mean..
|
On September 14 2013 04:47 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 03:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh? Cool, it's a world issue. So where the fuck is the rest of the world? When the rest of the world makes comparable sacrifices to take action, I will be more than happy to get shipped out to Syria and not complain. Until then, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed off when it's me and a bunch of other Americans taking the brunt of the action and sacrifices to do what the world wants to see. The rest of the world is trying to figure out what to do. You speak of "comparable sacrifices" what do you mean? Aside from their tax dollars going towards the military, what sacrifices are you referring to that the American people are making specifically? I think the real sacrifice here is that of the Syrian people, would you not agree? They are either, sacrificing their lives, their homeland, or their dignity. More importantly the USA will never be nation-building in Syria like they tried in Afghanistan and Iraq, they know now that this is not a skill they possess. ***IF*** they attack it will be swift, and brutal. The real sacrifices will be made by the people from the UN, the Arab League, and other constructive countries after the fighting to try and stabilize Syria. Do you think that American soldiers will be actually deployed? I for one certainly do not. I fail to see the American sacrifice being made that you speak of, please enlighten me, sir.
I'm talking about the sacrifices of taking action. If the U.S. military was to take action, there would be significant sacrifices in 1) our tax dollars and 2) our manpower. Again, it doesn't seem like you understand how a military works. Even without "boots on the ground" sailors and pilots are still required to travel across the world on warships into dangerous territory to do these kinds of missions that Kerry was talking about (and let's be realistic; it would probably escalate).
You're talking about the consequences of the aftermath of action; the rebuilding, the coping, all of the things that the region would have to do. What about the consequences of actually taking action? The resources and manpower that need to be dedicated and sacrificed? Where is the rest of the world during that part? Or do you guys still just want us U.S. soldiers to do all the dirty work?
You try to just ignore the resources needed to actually make an attack by saying that it'll be "swift and brutal". Isn't that exactly what we thought with Iraq/Afghanistan? These were countries that were insignificant in terms of threat level to U.S. power, and yet, due to numerous factors, we spent a good decade there, sinking countless billions of dollars into a war no one liked that was completely pointless and cost us plenty of lives.
|
On September 14 2013 04:47 D10 wrote:http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0913/War-in-Syria-The-stakes-for-IsraelI just want the rules and regulations we have set up to be followed. Couldnt convince russia and china to explode the victim of the week ? Sad day. The UN is never gonna work if the US never lends it any credibility, its a long term project that is constantly sabotaged by the us military industrial complex and their world police agenda
I find that the credibility of the UN is compromised just as much by Russia and China's foreign policies as it is America's. Simply blaming one country for the ineffectiveness of the UN is just wrong. I'm not saying American policy for the last 20 years hasn't been damaging, I would say that it was equally as damaging as what Russia and China do on a regular basis.
The UN never should have included many of the countries present today, and in all honesty, the UN will have the same fate as the League of Nations. After Rwanda, and every other fucking genocide that still takes place, we should all pull our heads out of the depths of our asses, wake up and smell the gunpowder.
NATO is probably the only true force of good left in the world.
|
|
|
I don't see how this report is going to be very important if they explicitly say that they won't be able to tell who used the weapons.
I find that the credibility of the UN is compromised just as much by Russia and China's foreign policies as it is America's. Simply blaming one country for the ineffectiveness of the UN is just wrong. I'm not saying American policy for the last 20 years hasn't been damaging, I would say that it was equally as damaging as what Russia and China do on a regular basis.
The UN never should have included many of the countries present today, and in all honesty, the UN will have the same fate as the League of Nations. After Rwanda, and every other fucking genocide that still takes place, we should all pull our heads out of the depths of our asses, wake up and smell the gunpowder.
NATO is probably the only true force of good left in the world.
The UN is kept impotent because the three interests with the most global influence all sit on a council that gives each one of them a veto over doing anything productive in instances of genocide/chemical weapons/etc. It's a ridiculous system that ensures that nothing will ever get done besides blaming each other. The idea that you can give five difference world powers vetoes to use at any time and that they will actually agree with each other to ever do anything is laughable. What possible motivation would Russia or China have to allow a U.S.-led UN intervention in ANY area of the world (or vis versa)?
|
On September 14 2013 04:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:47 iMOOrtal wrote:On September 14 2013 03:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh? Cool, it's a world issue. So where the fuck is the rest of the world? When the rest of the world makes comparable sacrifices to take action, I will be more than happy to get shipped out to Syria and not complain. Until then, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed off when it's me and a bunch of other Americans taking the brunt of the action and sacrifices to do what the world wants to see. The rest of the world is trying to figure out what to do. You speak of "comparable sacrifices" what do you mean? Aside from their tax dollars going towards the military, what sacrifices are you referring to that the American people are making specifically? I think the real sacrifice here is that of the Syrian people, would you not agree? They are either, sacrificing their lives, their homeland, or their dignity. More importantly the USA will never be nation-building in Syria like they tried in Afghanistan and Iraq, they know now that this is not a skill they possess. ***IF*** they attack it will be swift, and brutal. The real sacrifices will be made by the people from the UN, the Arab League, and other constructive countries after the fighting to try and stabilize Syria. Do you think that American soldiers will be actually deployed? I for one certainly do not. I fail to see the American sacrifice being made that you speak of, please enlighten me, sir. I'm talking about the sacrifices of taking action. If the U.S. military was to take action, there would be significant sacrifices in 1) our tax dollars and 2) our manpower. Again, it doesn't seem like you understand how a military works. Even without "boots on the ground" sailors and pilots are still required to travel across the world on warships into dangerous territory to do these kinds of missions that Kerry was talking about (and let's be realistic; it would probably escalate). You're talking about the consequences of the aftermath of action; the rebuilding, the coping, all of the things that the region would have to do. What about the consequences of actually taking action? The resources and manpower that need to be dedicated and sacrificed? Where is the rest of the world during that part? Or do you guys still just want us U.S. soldiers to do all the dirty work?
I do realize the cost of warfare, the cost of taking action. What you don't seem to connect in my thinking is that a monetary cost (i.e. tax dollars) is less significant than 100,000+ (growing) civilians killed. I'm comparing that to the great American sacrifice of moving ships around, expending cruise missiles, paying soldiers, ect. You do know that it would only take a small fraction of the "manpower" of the Navy and Airforce to instantly cripple Assad's forces. That is a drop into the ocean that is the Syrian sacrifice, and the cost and commitment from other countries to rebuild the Syria after it is crippled.
Also, not to mention, that the sacrifice of the American people, would only happen if they actually attack, which may not even happen. The sacrifice of the Syrian people, and other countries that will help rebuild, will happen whether or not the attack happens. This sacrifice will even be amplified if the Americans strike.
I fully understand your point, do you now understand my perspective? Please enlighten me further if you don't.
|
On September 14 2013 05:05 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 14 2013 04:47 iMOOrtal wrote:On September 14 2013 03:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh? Cool, it's a world issue. So where the fuck is the rest of the world? When the rest of the world makes comparable sacrifices to take action, I will be more than happy to get shipped out to Syria and not complain. Until then, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed off when it's me and a bunch of other Americans taking the brunt of the action and sacrifices to do what the world wants to see. The rest of the world is trying to figure out what to do. You speak of "comparable sacrifices" what do you mean? Aside from their tax dollars going towards the military, what sacrifices are you referring to that the American people are making specifically? I think the real sacrifice here is that of the Syrian people, would you not agree? They are either, sacrificing their lives, their homeland, or their dignity. More importantly the USA will never be nation-building in Syria like they tried in Afghanistan and Iraq, they know now that this is not a skill they possess. ***IF*** they attack it will be swift, and brutal. The real sacrifices will be made by the people from the UN, the Arab League, and other constructive countries after the fighting to try and stabilize Syria. Do you think that American soldiers will be actually deployed? I for one certainly do not. I fail to see the American sacrifice being made that you speak of, please enlighten me, sir. I'm talking about the sacrifices of taking action. If the U.S. military was to take action, there would be significant sacrifices in 1) our tax dollars and 2) our manpower. Again, it doesn't seem like you understand how a military works. Even without "boots on the ground" sailors and pilots are still required to travel across the world on warships into dangerous territory to do these kinds of missions that Kerry was talking about (and let's be realistic; it would probably escalate). You're talking about the consequences of the aftermath of action; the rebuilding, the coping, all of the things that the region would have to do. What about the consequences of actually taking action? The resources and manpower that need to be dedicated and sacrificed? Where is the rest of the world during that part? Or do you guys still just want us U.S. soldiers to do all the dirty work? I do realize the cost of warfare, the cost of taking action. What you don't seem to connect in my thinking is that a monetary cost (i.e. tax dollars) is less significant than 100,000+ (growing) civilians killed. I'm comparing that to the great American sacrifice of moving ships around, expending cruise missiles, paying soldiers, ect. You do know that it would only take a small fraction of the "manpower" of the Navy and Airforce to instantly cripple Assad's forces. That is a drop into the ocean that is the Syrian sacrifice, and the cost and commitment from other countries to rebuild the Syria after it is crippled. Also, not to mention, that the sacrifice of the American people, would only happen if they actually attack, which may not even happen. The sacrifice of the Syrian people, and other countries that will help rebuild, will happen whether or not the attack happens. This sacrifice will even be amplified if the Americans strike. I fully understand your point, do you now understand my perspective? Please enlighten me further if you don't.
I do, but then we go back to my first point. If I take your assumption that the sacrifice in money/manpower/potential lives (yes, there is a potential cost to even what Kerry was suggesting) is worth helping out Syrians, then we have two problems.
1) The U.S. has no direct responsibility to Syria, and therefore we can extrapolate from your point that everyone has an equal responsibility to the Syrian people. So again, where are the resources from the rest of the world? Why does the U.S. have to put forth more effort/time/money/manpower to do a strike like that than anyone else out there? Why are we responsible for that?
2) How do we know who the good guys are? I don't believe the batshit crazy Republicans in Congress that think that 90% of Rebels are terrorists, but there are a significant number of them in the Rebel army, and how can we just say, "Let's just cripple Assad and hope for the best"?
My overall point is this: There's a group of people out in the international community that think that the U.S. has some kind of responsibility to act. However, I, as an American sailor, didn't sign up to be the world's muscle when other countries are too lazy to put their own resources into conflicts that need an armed response. If the world decides that it's the best course of action and wants military intervention in Syria, it can't just expect the U.S. to take full responsibility for it. That's pretty lazy and selfish. A lot of us here in the U.S. either never supported Iraq or learned from it, so we're not about to just dive in to flex our muscles just because we can.
|
The report is important for several reasons:
a) It gives a concrete basis for the claims that large-scale chemical weapons attacks have occurred.
b) Certified details about the nature of the attack, and the tools use allow for countries to argue which side did it (if it was rocket-propelled, and only govt. forces have that capability, it was Assad)
c) Ban Ki Moon added commentary to the report linking it to Assad.
d) The report comes out while Kerry and Lavrov are in Geneva discussing the current proposal, and this report will put pressure on Russia to accept a stronger response.
|
On September 14 2013 05:12 Ghanburighan wrote:
The report is important for several reasons:
a) It gives a concrete basis for the claims that large-scale chemical weapons attacks have occurred.
b) Certified details about the nature of the attack, and the tools use allow for countries to argue which side did it (if it was rocket-propelled, and only govt. forces have that capability, it was Assad)
c) Ban Ki Moon added commentary to the report linking it to Assad.
d) The report comes out while Kerry and Lavrov are in Geneva discussing the current proposal, and this report will put pressure on Russia to accept a stronger response.
It is a Civil War.... Can you rule out beyond all possibility that the rebels got there hands on any of the CW?
There is no point in knowing the nature of the rocket. Either side would be firing the exact same one if they had any.
This report will answer nothing. We know there was a CW attack, what we need to know is who did it.
|
On September 14 2013 05:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:05 iMOOrtal wrote:On September 14 2013 04:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 14 2013 04:47 iMOOrtal wrote:On September 14 2013 03:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh? Cool, it's a world issue. So where the fuck is the rest of the world? When the rest of the world makes comparable sacrifices to take action, I will be more than happy to get shipped out to Syria and not complain. Until then, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed off when it's me and a bunch of other Americans taking the brunt of the action and sacrifices to do what the world wants to see. The rest of the world is trying to figure out what to do. You speak of "comparable sacrifices" what do you mean? Aside from their tax dollars going towards the military, what sacrifices are you referring to that the American people are making specifically? I think the real sacrifice here is that of the Syrian people, would you not agree? They are either, sacrificing their lives, their homeland, or their dignity. More importantly the USA will never be nation-building in Syria like they tried in Afghanistan and Iraq, they know now that this is not a skill they possess. ***IF*** they attack it will be swift, and brutal. The real sacrifices will be made by the people from the UN, the Arab League, and other constructive countries after the fighting to try and stabilize Syria. Do you think that American soldiers will be actually deployed? I for one certainly do not. I fail to see the American sacrifice being made that you speak of, please enlighten me, sir. I'm talking about the sacrifices of taking action. If the U.S. military was to take action, there would be significant sacrifices in 1) our tax dollars and 2) our manpower. Again, it doesn't seem like you understand how a military works. Even without "boots on the ground" sailors and pilots are still required to travel across the world on warships into dangerous territory to do these kinds of missions that Kerry was talking about (and let's be realistic; it would probably escalate). You're talking about the consequences of the aftermath of action; the rebuilding, the coping, all of the things that the region would have to do. What about the consequences of actually taking action? The resources and manpower that need to be dedicated and sacrificed? Where is the rest of the world during that part? Or do you guys still just want us U.S. soldiers to do all the dirty work? I do realize the cost of warfare, the cost of taking action. What you don't seem to connect in my thinking is that a monetary cost (i.e. tax dollars) is less significant than 100,000+ (growing) civilians killed. I'm comparing that to the great American sacrifice of moving ships around, expending cruise missiles, paying soldiers, ect. You do know that it would only take a small fraction of the "manpower" of the Navy and Airforce to instantly cripple Assad's forces. That is a drop into the ocean that is the Syrian sacrifice, and the cost and commitment from other countries to rebuild the Syria after it is crippled. Also, not to mention, that the sacrifice of the American people, would only happen if they actually attack, which may not even happen. The sacrifice of the Syrian people, and other countries that will help rebuild, will happen whether or not the attack happens. This sacrifice will even be amplified if the Americans strike. I fully understand your point, do you now understand my perspective? Please enlighten me further if you don't. I do, but then we go back to my first point. If I take your assumption that the sacrifice in money/manpower/potential lives (yes, there is a potential cost to even what Kerry was suggesting) is worth helping out Syrians, then we have two problems. 1) The U.S. has no direct responsibility to Syria, and therefore we can extrapolate from your point that everyone has an equal responsibility to the Syrian people. So again, where are the resources from the rest of the world? Why does the U.S. have to put forth more effort/time/money/manpower to do a strike like that than anyone else out there? Why are we responsible for that? 2) How do we know who the good guys are? I don't believe the batshit crazy Republicans in Congress that think that 90% of Rebels are terrorists, but there are a significant number of them in the Rebel army, and how can we just say, "Let's just cripple Assad and hope for the best"?
1) Agree, we all have an equal responsibility. USA is good at fighting, the rest of the world is good at rebuilding. It will take 2 days to tear it down, and 20 years to rebuild it. We can debate the logistics of this, monetary expense vs loss of life, time to rebuild the country ect, it will be pointless. We agree in principle, we can leave it at that.
2) I said previously when I gave my 1, 2 breakdown that it is my hope that if USA strikes it will be against both Assad and some of the rebel groups, we actually agree in principle again.
The only thing we are disagreeing on is the value of moving ships, and expending missiles .vs. the loss of life/cost to rebuild the country.
Is this correct? If so, I think we can end this now. If not, please enlighten me further.
|
Okay so let's say America attacks.
First, what do we attack? How extensive are these attacks going to be? What do we do when Syria starts retaliating against Israel and against us? How do we control the outcome of the transition in power? What do we do when the rebels gain control of the chemical weapons? What do we do if the radical elements of the rebels (which compose the majority of them) take control of the government? What do we do if the situation escalates into a full-blown war? What do we do when Americans start getting hit by Russian subsidized strikes?
This thing has the potential to blow up in our face in so many ways, but the rest of the world seems to want us to throw caution to the wind and just start bombing the shit out of everyone when there is absolutely no benefit to us involved, and the rest of the world isn't even willing to step up and do anything. We have no interest whatsoever in supporting either side in this war, nor do we have any interest in getting involved. Why is it our job to bomb the shit out of people? The French have jets, why don't they fucking bomb Syria? Why does it have to be our bombs? And when we do bomb Assad and take him out of power, why is it going to be our job to clean up the mess? And if we don't clean up the mess, than why did we go in in the first place? Or is Syria going to magically become a secularized democracy when absolutely no one on the rebels side has any interest whatsoever in creating that?
Either come up with a legitimate plan of action for what America should do or shut up about it. And saying: "Well they have to do SOMETHING!" is not a legitimate plan of action.
edit: the world is good at rebuilding? Yeah because they've had such a great history in doing it...
|
On September 14 2013 05:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:I don't see how this report is going to be very important if they explicitly say that they won't be able to tell who used the weapons. Show nested quote +I find that the credibility of the UN is compromised just as much by Russia and China's foreign policies as it is America's. Simply blaming one country for the ineffectiveness of the UN is just wrong. I'm not saying American policy for the last 20 years hasn't been damaging, I would say that it was equally as damaging as what Russia and China do on a regular basis.
The UN never should have included many of the countries present today, and in all honesty, the UN will have the same fate as the League of Nations. After Rwanda, and every other fucking genocide that still takes place, we should all pull our heads out of the depths of our asses, wake up and smell the gunpowder.
NATO is probably the only true force of good left in the world. The UN is kept impotent because the three interests with the most global influence all sit on a council that gives each one of them a veto over doing anything productive in instances of genocide/chemical weapons/etc. It's a ridiculous system that ensures that nothing will ever get done besides blaming each other. The idea that you can give five difference world powers vetoes to use at any time and that they will actually agree with each other to ever do anything is laughable. What possible motivation would Russia or China have to allow a U.S.-led UN intervention in ANY area of the world (or vis versa)?
Exactly, the UN is a joke, just like the League of Nations was. NATO will be there at least, isn't NATO the best shit ever?
|
On September 14 2013 04:54 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:50 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:38 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:32 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:26 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events. Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ? What last events are you talking about exacly? On 26 August, rebel forces took over the village of Khanasir in Aleppo governorate. The strategic village was the government's last supply route for the contested city of Aleppo. On 8 September, rebels led by al-Nusra Front captured the Christian town of Maaloula, 43 km north of Damascus Afaik the rebels already lost the christian village Didnt lose they just decided not to fight there,but it shows its much worse for Assad if the Rebels can conquer a village,which is only 48 km away from your Stronghold. Nan it doesnt Assad is doing great and he will win without external support Besides the support Iran, Hizbollah and Russia are giving Assad, you mean..
Sorry, I meant as long as the rebels dont get external support
|
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/As-pressure-on-Syria-wanes-ministers-begin-discussing-implications-for-Iran-326061
The government’s self-imposed verbal restraint on Syria started to unravel Thursday, with Likud Ministers Yuval Steinitz and Silvan Shalom both warning about implications the Russian-brokered Syrian deal might have on Iran.
“Iran understands today that there is nothing backing up all the threats against it,” Regional Cooperation Minister Shalom said. “If it is impossible to do anything against little Syria, then certainly not against big Iran.”
“Israel is not involved in the Syrian civil war,” Shalom said “But Israel also says that the lack of a decision regarding Syria is a decision, and in our region it will have a great deal of significance.”
Steinitz, the intelligence minister, echoed that theme, saying in an Army Radio interview that the situation in Syria was resonating in Iran.
If a “mighty hand and an outstretched arm” is seen in Syria and if there will be either an “adequate response” to President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons or the complete dismantling of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, “that could also be an important step in the Iranian direction that broadcasts international determination that will resonate with the Iranians,” he said.
He warned that inaction in Syria would reverberate very negatively in Iran, and “they could feel very good about continuing to develop their nuclear program.”
Iran is “watching the actions of the US and the UN Security Council,” Steinitz said. Another lesson from the Syrian situation that the world must internalize, he explained, was that if radical countries like Iran or Syria obtain weapons of mass destruction, “one day they may not only threaten to use them, but actually do so.”
He said that if the Russian proposal to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons will be implemented, “that is something good that the whole world would welcome.” He added, however, that Israel was not very confident that it will indeed materialize.
These warnings came as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has been absorbed in the Syrian issue for the last two weeks, began returning to a bit more of a normal routine.
While Netanyahu is still convening ongoing security briefings, one official said, there was “no doubt that the prospect of an American strike being moved back for the time being means that now the work is more routine.”
|
On September 14 2013 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: the world is good at rebuilding? Yeah because they've had such a great history in doing it...
Kosovo, Serbia. Both seem much better now than they did in the 90s. I realize there are bad examples as well, I was pointing out that "the world" is better at nation-building than the Americans, while America is better at conducting warfare than the rest of "the world". I'm pointing out that we all have our role to play, simple as that.
edit: le spelling
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
