| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:10 Polis wrote: Yeah why would Assad attack UK with chemical weapons? This doesn't make sense at all, extremist elements among the rebels are the ones that you should be worried about. FYP, np. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:25 BRaegO wrote: When is our government going to realize that our own country is hurting bad and has been for quite awhile. I'm not saying don't help people, I'm just saying they really need to sort out their priorities. :/ Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I think he gets this. At the very least, he understands how unpopular intervention in Syria would be domestically. Unfortunately for him, he has so badly mismanaged the situation for the past two years that he has painted himself into a corner. Drawing red lines that he had no intention of enforcing was stupid, and he knows that he is making himself look like a tool on the international stage. It's that kind of waffling that feeds public perception of weakness in democrats on foreign policy issues. He would have been much better off had he never drawn the red line and instead said that the US had no intention of getting involved. | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
The best thing we can hope for is a few dull powerless dude, controlled by bribes, who changes nothing and leaves the country to warlords and terrorists (Irak/Afghanistan). So fuck you middle east. Fuck you Africa. We stop shipping weapons, and you better get your shit together before we plaster every last village with solarpanels to charge out iphones to play candy crush. | ||
|
ETisME
12680 Posts
Once the US and the allies go in, it will just lead to even more instability in the region. Iran will likely to help, then Israel might get involved as well. there is speculation that Israel has chemical weapons as well. if war does break out, we can't even imagine the level of economic damage we will have. the world still has lots of economic structural problem everywhere. any negative changes to Middle east oil supply will hit China's economy so bad that it might lead to a whole world depression. the US simply can't afford to do this to their own economy. Honestly if there is any lesson to be learnt, it is any intervention that was caused by other countries, the more changes the region will receive and eventually it will become out of control political states were drawn way too recklessly without any consideration of ethnic/religious group WW1. sure, it wasn't the start of all the conflicts, but surely it contributed a lot to what we have today. If the US really intervened without waiting for the UN report, I would see this just become another factor of another unstable conflict | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:41 xDaunt wrote: Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I think he gets this. At the very least, he understands how unpopular intervention in Syria would be domestically. Unfortunately for him, he has so badly mismanaged the situation for the past two years that he has painted himself into a corner. Drawing red lines that he had no intention of enforcing was stupid, and he knows that he is making himself look like a tool on the international stage. It's that kind of waffling that feeds public perception of weakness in democrats on foreign policy issues. He would have been much better off had he never drawn the red line and instead said that the US had no intention of getting involved. Can you provide an ELI5 explanation for the red lines drawn by Obama regarding Syria? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:56 mav451 wrote: Can you provide an ELI5 explanation for the red lines drawn by Obama regarding Syria? Unfortunately, that's basically impossible. He said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would constitute the crossing of a "red line," which is pretty unmistakable parlance for "using chemical weapons will prompt US military action." In the very next breath, he immediately began to waffle on this hardline rhetoric. If you look at everything he says, he really didn't say anything. However, the only thing that anyone was ever going to remember was the "red line." Basically, he fell into the trap of trying to be too clever rather than providing any kind of meaningful clarity. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 31 2013 01:16 xDaunt wrote: Unfortunately, that's basically impossible. He said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would constitute the crossing of a "red line," which is pretty unmistakable parlance for "using chemical weapons will prompt US military action." In the very next breath, he immediately began to waffle on this hardline rhetoric. If you look at everything he says, he really didn't say anything. However, the only thing that anyone was ever going to remember was the "red line." Basically, he fell into the trap of trying to be too clever rather than providing any kind of meaningful clarity. That languages was vetted though. The president doesn't just throw that phrase out there for no reason and at the time it made sense. The problem is that the political climate has changed and the nation has become more war weary than ever. Congress is not likely to support any military action that does not have a clear goal and its hard to plan out a clear goal for this stuff in a week. There is going to be a response of some kind, but it won't be instant like the new media report. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 31 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote: That languages was vetted though. The president doesn't just throw that phrase out there for no reason and at the time it made sense. The problem is that the political climate has changed and the nation has become more war weary than ever. Congress is not likely to support any military action that does not have a clear goal and its hard to plan out a clear goal for this stuff in a week. There is going to be a response of some kind, but it won't be instant like the new media report. Don't get me wrong. When someone says "red line," regardless of whatever hedging that comes after, that has a definite meaning. At the very least, what Obama said cannot be construed in any way other than "If Syria uses chemical weapons, the United States will become involved militarily to some extent in Syria." | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/ | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On August 31 2013 01:45 HeatEXTEND wrote: Don't know if this has been posted yet, but it seems pretty relevant. http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/ How is Russian propaganda relevant? We saw what it was like in the Georgian conflict, just completely biased and making stuff up. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote: What I was saying in the 2nd paragraph, which could've been worded a lot better admittedly(such as not using the word 'only') was that the terrorist problems USA especially faces is mostly connected to the 2 wars(yes I know 9/11 was ofc before the 2 wars). For those to stop, for this "war on terror" to stop(yes even though crazy people will still commit terrorism) I feel the west and especially USA needs to be rather the voice of peace than war. That includes stopping double taps and signature strikes which I consider war crimes. To stabalize middle east we can't just invade any country that becomes unstable. They need to work it out for themselves and we should just be focusing on trying to reach the rational, calm people of those regions. Instead we are depriving those people of their humanity as they watch their family members bombed and have to watch them die due to fear of a double tap. If we behave like animals, why shouldn't they? The other terrorist problems are usually rooted in something social, such as nordic nations(and UK I think?) have multi-culturalism issues, India seems more political/religion based, Israel/Palestine is ofcourse by now what 55 year history etc etc. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
live stream | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On August 31 2013 01:55 Klive5ive wrote: How is Russian propaganda relevant? We saw what it was like in the Georgian conflict, just completely biased and making stuff up. First I'll state the obvious, every country produces "propaganda" so ye. Second, did you read through it ? That would be one hell of a bullshit story. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 31 2013 02:05 farvacola wrote: Russia Today and hella bullshit stories are not strangers at all. Wait, you mean I shouldn't treat them like the BBC? | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On August 31 2013 02:09 Plansix wrote: Wait, you mean I shouldn't treat them like the BBC? Plansix, you newb. There's a huge difference between Russia Today and the BBC. The first one makes up facts, the second sob stories. | ||
|
Dryzt
Canada118 Posts
RT put out a news feed stating the following: (no news article released yet) "Syria UN envoy says rebels used chemical weapons Syria’s envoy to the UN Bashar Jaafari on Wednesday accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons to “bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria.” Many facts “tend to prove the innocence of the Syrian government, which has been subject to false accusations,” AFP quoted the ambassador as saying. The West and Turkey “have enabled terrorist groups to create a laboratory for chemical weapons on Turkish territory with materials provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar… and to bring these chemical weapons to Syria for use,” he said." another news agency corroborates the story: http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=456638 and really why would Assad's forces give orders to use Chemical weapons when that is supposedly the "trigger" for the US and its coalition of the willing to bomb the country to glass. Its more in line with what these former officials are talking about; a premeditated plan to remove the Assad regime to gain greater control over the area: | ||
|
iMOOrtal
Canada144 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:30 zezamer wrote: ****ing pathetic to use wounded children to try to get sympathy on your side.. 426 children died in the chem attack. Estimated 1429 people total. - John Kerry, bro. I disagree, wounded/dead children should bring about empathy/sympathy/understanding from anyone who is not a psychopath. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On August 31 2013 02:21 Dryzt wrote: One of the spokespeople setting up the scenario for the need for intervention in Syria has been outed. Member of the Syrian rebel force Danny Abdul-Dayem has been interviewed by CNN and other mainstream media broadcasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-DCZxsrt9I RT put out a news feed stating the following: (no news article released yet) "Syria UN envoy says rebels used chemical weapons Syria’s envoy to the UN Bashar Jaafari on Wednesday accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons to “bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria.” Many facts “tend to prove the innocence of the Syrian government, which has been subject to false accusations,” AFP quoted the ambassador as saying. The West and Turkey “have enabled terrorist groups to create a laboratory for chemical weapons on Turkish territory with materials provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar… and to bring these chemical weapons to Syria for use,” he said." another news agency corroborates the story: http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=456638 and really why would Assad's forces give orders to use Chemical weapons when that is supposedly the "trigger" for the US and its coalition of the willing to bomb the country to glass. Its more in line with what these former officials are talking about; a premeditated plan to remove the Assad regime to gain greater control over the area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw So you see nothing wrong with the fact that Russia Today and an outspokenly Shia news agency are the only ones telling that story? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 31 2013 02:14 Ghanburighan wrote: Plansix, you newb. There's a huge difference between Russia Today and the BBC. The first one makes up facts, the second sob stories. My sarcasm cannot cut through the veil of the internet. Clearly I would never trust Russia Today over the BBC. I put Russia Today slightly above Yahoo Answers, but only due to word count and sentence structure. And some days Yahoo Answers wins out on that one too. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
.
