|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though.
Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you?
|
On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you?
Ahh, the old liberal defense of murder.
That's all you are doing, justifying murder.
|
On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you?
Unless extreme circumstances exist, well-documented systematic and disproportionated usage of a letal weapon (usage of Sarin gaz could be one), I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism.
Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes.
The one of honesty.
To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess.
|
On August 26 2013 19:56 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you? Unless extreme circumstances exist, systematic and well-proofed usage of Sarin gaz could be one, I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism. Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes. The one of honesty. To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess.
Yeah, you're framing this as if you can only do two things (American invasion that is 1:1 Iraq-war, or laissez-faire). I hope you can see the flaw in this...
You also said there is absolutely no moral reason to intervene. If there are any innocent civilians being killed or enslaved, then there is in fact a moral reason to intervene. Perhaps you should've worded your comment better.
Oh and another thing, why do people think that arbitrary national political lines encapsulate responsibility and morality? Why is it that only a Syrian can act morally with other Syrians? Nationalism is merely an illusion. The sooner we shrug it off the sooner we can act as ethical, enlightened human beings, primates as we are.
|
On August 26 2013 19:56 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you? Unless extreme circumstances exist, well-documented systematic and disproportionated usage of a letal weapon (usage of Sarin gaz could be one), I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism. Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes. The one of honesty. To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess.
I don't see how invading or intervening in syria is in america's geopolitical interest, if everything was just cold hearted geopolitical interest it would be to make the war go on for as long as possible making sure no one wins and as many Hezbollah/Iran/Assad forces and AQ forces kill each other, intervening will probably turn the tables against Assad and help the "rebels" win the war. This is clearly a humanitarian response and little to do with geopolitical interests.
|
On August 26 2013 20:01 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:56 SiroKO wrote:On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you? Unless extreme circumstances exist, systematic and well-proofed usage of Sarin gaz could be one, I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism. Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes. The one of honesty. To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess. Yeah, you're framing this as if you can only do two things (American invasion that is 1:1 Iraq-war, or laissez-faire). I hope you can see the flaw in this... You also said there is absolutely no moral reason to intervene. If there are any innocent civilians being killed or enslaved, then there is in fact a moral reason to intervene. Perhaps you should've worded your comment better. Oh and another thing, why do people think that arbitrary national political lines encapsulate responsibility and morality? Why is it that only a Syrian can act morally with other Syrians? Nationalism is merely an illusion. The sooner we shrug it off the sooner we can act as ethical, enlightened human beings, primates as we are.
Chances are that you are a little white atheist petit-bourgeois borned in the West who would look down 95% of Syrian muslim as fascist and/or fanatical muslim after a short discussion with them on the theme of religion or patriotism.
Please, realize you have no moral legitimacy to intervene in these area, and neither would the Qatar or Iran have any business invading a Western country if there were a civil war in it.
It's a form of neo-colonization.
Besides, although my English is not perfect, I think I phrased my idea correctly.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene (implicitly "as of now"). Innocent casualties happen in every war.
On the theme of nationalism, well, different nations have radically diverging (geo-political) interests. Therefore the idea of a humanity alltogether and deprived of nationalism is the real illusion.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 26 2013 20:12 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:01 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 19:56 SiroKO wrote:On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you? Unless extreme circumstances exist, systematic and well-proofed usage of Sarin gaz could be one, I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism. Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes. The one of honesty. To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess. Yeah, you're framing this as if you can only do two things (American invasion that is 1:1 Iraq-war, or laissez-faire). I hope you can see the flaw in this... You also said there is absolutely no moral reason to intervene. If there are any innocent civilians being killed or enslaved, then there is in fact a moral reason to intervene. Perhaps you should've worded your comment better. Oh and another thing, why do people think that arbitrary national political lines encapsulate responsibility and morality? Why is it that only a Syrian can act morally with other Syrians? Nationalism is merely an illusion. The sooner we shrug it off the sooner we can act as ethical, enlightened human beings, primates as we are. Chances are that you are a little white atheist petit-bourgeois borned in the West who would look down 95% of Syrian muslim as fascist and/or fanatical muslim after a short discussion with them on the theme of religion or patriotism. Please, realize you have no moral legitimacy to intervene in these area, and neither would the Qatar or Iran have any business invading a Western country if there were a civil war in it. It's a form of neo-colonization. Besides, although my English is not perfect, I think I phrased my idea correctly. There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene (implicitly "as of now"). Innocent casualties happen in every war.
Oh, what a great argument! I'm convinced!
+ Show Spoiler +
So innocent casualties are nothing to worry about, they aren't a bad thing since they don't contribute to a moral reason? And what the heck are you on about with this 95% syrian fasists, blah blah blah... More distractions from the real argument at hand.
|
On August 26 2013 20:08 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:56 SiroKO wrote:On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you? Unless extreme circumstances exist, well-documented systematic and disproportionated usage of a letal weapon (usage of Sarin gaz could be one), I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism. Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes. The one of honesty. To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess. I don't see how invading or intervening in syria is in america's geopolitical interest, if everything was just cold hearted geopolitical interest it would be to make the war go on for as long as possible making sure no one wins and as many Hezbollah/Iran/Assad forces and AQ forces kill each other, intervening will probably turn the tables against Assad and help the "rebels" win the war. This is clearly a humanitarian response and little to do with geopolitical interests.
Their invasion in Iraq did just that... Iraq is a total mess, full of terrorists and non-stop violence.
On August 26 2013 20:24 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:12 SiroKO wrote:On August 26 2013 20:01 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 19:56 SiroKO wrote:On August 26 2013 19:42 Roe wrote:On August 26 2013 18:49 SiroKO wrote:
It's a fight between a dictator, and Islamic forces armed by an Americano-Zionist coalition which aim to destabilize the regime.
There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene in this mess, even admitting a low usage of Sarin gaz by either parties.
There might be Zionist or geopolitical interests though. Every Syrian citizen deserves either death or subservience to dictators and Islamo-fascists to you? Unless extreme circumstances exist, systematic and well-proofed usage of Sarin gaz could be one, I don't believe in foreign interference in the name of moral values. It's a form of neo-colonialism. Invading Syria in the name of Americano-Zionist imperialism and geopolitical interests would have some merit in my eyes. The one of honesty. To me it's up to the Syrians and perhaps the famous and laughable Arab league to solve this mess. Yeah, you're framing this as if you can only do two things (American invasion that is 1:1 Iraq-war, or laissez-faire). I hope you can see the flaw in this... You also said there is absolutely no moral reason to intervene. If there are any innocent civilians being killed or enslaved, then there is in fact a moral reason to intervene. Perhaps you should've worded your comment better. Oh and another thing, why do people think that arbitrary national political lines encapsulate responsibility and morality? Why is it that only a Syrian can act morally with other Syrians? Nationalism is merely an illusion. The sooner we shrug it off the sooner we can act as ethical, enlightened human beings, primates as we are. Chances are that you are a little white atheist petit-bourgeois borned in the West who would look down 95% of Syrian muslim as fascist and/or fanatical muslim after a short discussion with them on the theme of religion or patriotism. Please, realize you have no moral legitimacy to intervene in these area, and neither would the Qatar or Iran have any business invading a Western country if there were a civil war in it. It's a form of neo-colonization. Besides, although my English is not perfect, I think I phrased my idea correctly. There's absolutely no moral reason to intervene (implicitly "as of now"). Innocent casualties happen in every war. Oh, what a great argument! I'm convinced! + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvRzrxuuvV4 So innocent casualties are nothing to worry about, they aren't a bad thing since they don't contribute to a moral reason? And what the heck are you on about with this 95% syrian fasists, blah blah blah... More distractions from the real argument at hand.
And who's going to bring peace to Syria? The Americans? The same Americans who are responsible for more innocent deaths than Assad can even "hope" for? The US does not give a shit about innocent people dying, unless they're Americans... They have shown that time and time again.
|
|
|
Is there ANY way (invading, not invading, some kind of political shenanigans, whatever) Syirian people will stop suffering? Why don't we make a plan first, and then think of a method to apply it later? Not a long reader of the thread, it's too long to read it fully, but I'm seeing a lot of Invading vs. Not-invading (or interfering, whatever you want to call it) discussion, but I think we should think of a real solution first and then think if direct interference is the way to go.
|
On August 26 2013 20:40 FallenStar wrote:
Is there ANY way (invading, not invading, some kind of political shenanigans, whatever) Syirian people will stop suffering? Why don't we make a plan first, and then think of a method to apply it later? Not a long reader of the thread, it's too long to read it fully, but I'm seeing a lot of Invading vs. Not-invading (or interfering, whatever you want to call it) discussion, but I think we should think of a real solution first and then think if direct interference is the way to go.
Please, define the "we", and find a more serious ambition than wanting "Syrian people to stop suffering". It's mainly a Syrian civil war with attrocities commited on both sides. To our western standards, just as I said before, both camps would be referred as (theologico-)fascists. It's good sometimes to be humble and step aside.
Besides, there are already indirect interferences through ultimatum, threats, and the fact it is American and Israeli forces who arm and train a large part of the Syrian rebels.
|
On August 26 2013 20:40 FallenStar wrote:
Is there ANY way (invading, not invading, some kind of political shenanigans, whatever) Syirian people will stop suffering? Why don't we make a plan first, and then think of a method to apply it later? Not a long reader of the thread, it's too long to read it fully, but I'm seeing a lot of Invading vs. Not-invading (or interfering, whatever you want to call it) discussion, but I think we should think of a real solution first and then think if direct interference is the way to go.
Only real way is for USA, France and whoever to stop giving rebels support and suggestions to continue the fight. And make an arrangement with Assad that he will not kill or imprison everyone that rebelled if they give up peacefully.
This rebellion would never have happened if there was no Western support.
|
On August 26 2013 20:52 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:40 FallenStar wrote:
Is there ANY way (invading, not invading, some kind of political shenanigans, whatever) Syirian people will stop suffering? Why don't we make a plan first, and then think of a method to apply it later? Not a long reader of the thread, it's too long to read it fully, but I'm seeing a lot of Invading vs. Not-invading (or interfering, whatever you want to call it) discussion, but I think we should think of a real solution first and then think if direct interference is the way to go. Please, define the "we", and find a more serious ambition than wanting "Syrian people to stop suffering". It's mainly a Syrian civil war with attrocities commited on both sides. To our western standards, just as I said before, both camps would be referred as (theologico-)fascists. Besides, there are already indirect interferences through ultimatum, threats, and the fact it is American and Israeli forces who arm and train a large part of the Syrian rebels.
you realise america not sure on israel though haven't been arming the rebels, its been Saudi Arabia and the emirate states bahrain kuwait qatar etc.
|
Militiary intervention would be the worst outcome for the civilians in syria. It may not fit into your narrow minded democracy is the best of all things worldview but dictators provide stability. If assad gets taken down Syria will become a violent mess similar to Iraq. There is no coherent opposition and after Assad loses they will turn upon each other. So why would the western nations invade Syria? Because a war is always a nice distraction from domestic problems.
This isnt even for oil or neo colonalism its a low cost war to boost public opinion. Hollande needs the war because his ratings are plummeting and the UK and the US want to disctract their population from the massive spy programs on their private lives.
Hell we dont even need to send any ground personell. Erdogan will gladly send turkish ground troops to further his pan-sunni/ turkish-empire. A no fly zones enforced by the west will be enough to make assad crumble.
If we truly cared about the syrian people we would send full support to assad to end the rebellion and offer a pardon and asylum to any rebels that want to leave the country, but killing people with rockets and drones is cheaper I guess.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
arab world should step up with better refugee outlets.
|
United States43536 Posts
On August 26 2013 20:56 Yuljan wrote:
Militiary intervention would be the worst outcome for the civilians in syria. It may not fit into your narrow minded democracy is the best of all things worldview but dictators provide stability. If assad gets taken down Syria will become a violent mess similar to Iraq. There is no coherent opposition and after Assad loses they will turn upon each other. So why would the western nations invade Syria? Because a war is always a nice distraction from domestic problems.
This isnt even for oil or neo colonalism its a low cost war to boost public opinion. Hollande needs the war because his ratings are plummeting and the UK and the US want to disctract their population from the massive spy programs on their private lives.
Hell we dont even need to send any ground personell. Erdogan will gladly send turkish ground troops to further his pan-sunni/ turkish-empire. A no fly zones enforced by the west will be enough to make assad crumble.
If we truly cared about the syrian people we would send full support to assad to end the rebellion and offer a pardon and asylum to any rebels that want to leave the country, but killing people with rockets and drones is cheaper I guess.
The spying shit isn't causing the government any trouble in England. There's much more drama about fracking. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.
|
On August 26 2013 20:55 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:52 SiroKO wrote:On August 26 2013 20:40 FallenStar wrote:
Is there ANY way (invading, not invading, some kind of political shenanigans, whatever) Syirian people will stop suffering? Why don't we make a plan first, and then think of a method to apply it later? Not a long reader of the thread, it's too long to read it fully, but I'm seeing a lot of Invading vs. Not-invading (or interfering, whatever you want to call it) discussion, but I think we should think of a real solution first and then think if direct interference is the way to go. Please, define the "we", and find a more serious ambition than wanting "Syrian people to stop suffering". It's mainly a Syrian civil war with attrocities commited on both sides. To our western standards, just as I said before, both camps would be referred as (theologico-)fascists. Besides, there are already indirect interferences through ultimatum, threats, and the fact it is American and Israeli forces who arm and train a large part of the Syrian rebels. you realise america not sure on israel though haven't been arming the rebels, its been Saudi Arabia and the emirate states bahrain kuwait qatar etc.
Saudia arabia, emirate states... and all these jokes of a country (aka oil monarchies) are puppets of America and Israel since their fundation. This is merely a smoke screen.
They didn't produce the arms, where do these come from ?
Besides, they are not the ones training the rebels.
|
A civil war with chemical weapons and people are wondering whether or not America will get involved? Spoiler: it's near the middle east, of course they will.
Also egypt.
I dunno, I kinda wish America and other countries could just...fuck off for once. Like let a civil war play out without installing their own government. However, I then look at the other side of the coin; the side where the civil war leads to ongoing African warlords and child soldiers cutting off arms and raping women with the cut off arms, then overthrowing each other in a perpetual retard storm of guns, violence and stupidity.
Then I look at the other side of the coin (the one with America, France...etc....yes I keep flipping the same goddamn coin) and realize that without intervention you end up with afghanistan, serbia, egypt etc.
HOWEVER has interventions done anything, really?
GOD. I hate fucking politics. It saddens me that areas of the world are in a perpetual shitstorm thanks to stupid bullshit such as religion, dictators or sand. Why can't the world learn from my home city? We are the conservative capital of canada (calgary) and we voted in a gay muslim mayor who currently has a 95% approval rating. If the bros and retards that swarm Calgary (I live here now) can learn to love someone they "hate" because he thinks long term and is a decent human being, why can't other places?
Sometimes I fear that certain areas of the world are doomed to shitclamp each other without end. It's upsetting. I just hope this doesn't lead to yet another unwanted occupation of a muslim/african country that doesn't end until it's economically unviable/publicly unsupported and once the first world pulls out it just goes back to being a sandy shit hole.
D:
|
On August 26 2013 21:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:56 Yuljan wrote:
Militiary intervention would be the worst outcome for the civilians in syria. It may not fit into your narrow minded democracy is the best of all things worldview but dictators provide stability. If assad gets taken down Syria will become a violent mess similar to Iraq. There is no coherent opposition and after Assad loses they will turn upon each other. So why would the western nations invade Syria? Because a war is always a nice distraction from domestic problems.
This isnt even for oil or neo colonalism its a low cost war to boost public opinion. Hollande needs the war because his ratings are plummeting and the UK and the US want to disctract their population from the massive spy programs on their private lives.
Hell we dont even need to send any ground personell. Erdogan will gladly send turkish ground troops to further his pan-sunni/ turkish-empire. A no fly zones enforced by the west will be enough to make assad crumble.
If we truly cared about the syrian people we would send full support to assad to end the rebellion and offer a pardon and asylum to any rebels that want to leave the country, but killing people with rockets and drones is cheaper I guess. The spying shit isn't causing the government any trouble in England. There's much more drama about fracking. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.
Well I only have a basic knowledge of the internal situation in your country so I thank you for your correction. Still a "just" war can be a pretty decent popularity booster.
|
I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
