ForumsWEPRClimb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

44 6340
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

Whats going to happen? Does USA will attack? Will Iran get in? What russia will sell and does Assad will realy fire at Israel?

Share news, thougt and feeling about the situation.
Bla bla bla be polite and bla bla dont curse or flame.


(120 Danielo points to anyone who will tell me wher the title is taken from)

  • 44 Replies
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

even if just to sting the western world, not challange it.

To what end? "Hurray, a mouse kicked a bear!" If their goal is to anger us, it's not a great plan. There is no throne, there is no version of this where they come out on top.

Vietnam.

Started by France.

Afghanistan.

Civil war intervention.

Iraq.

Which one? I find the recent one to be an extension of the disarmament of Iraq following the Gulf War, which they started by invading Kuwait.

On topic, videos of the chemical weapons victims are being released.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

The current plan is for some tactical missile strikes, not an invasion. No soldiers, at least not on the US side, dying in this case.


So it's a cowards war? I've been looking ALL OVER the internet, but I can't find any 'good' reason why they're doing this.
stinkyjim
offline
stinkyjim
487 posts
1,585

So it's a cowards war? I've been looking ALL OVER the internet, but I can't find any 'good' reason why they're doing this.


We have no business interfering with Syria's affairs, but that doesn't mean we can't offer our support in the form of missiles and supplies. It's a much better alternative than landing soldiers in, only to have them be killed by both sides of the conflict. Attacking strategic locations with no unnecessary deaths seems like a good plan. Otherwise it would be another Iraq War.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,274 posts
430

Started by France.

Er... no. They weren't the same war. Also, the US financed Ho Chi Min. And Bin Laden. Frankly, your country is spectacularly bad at choosing who to bankroll.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

Not so much that, in as much the Us backing whichever terrorist or dictator goves them the boggest advantage that particular day. Ho Chi Minh was foghting the Japanese during WWII: He gets money. Bin Laden was foghting the USSR in Afghanistan: He gets money. Preety much American Foreign Policy for the last 70 years or so.

danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

Nerdsoft - who is the super power at the end of the day? Right. So ill say they are doing quite well with choosing allies. In the last 100 years at least.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,086 posts
1,705

Honestly, we need to stay out of Syria.

Firing missiles into Syria WON'T end the war over there. If there's no intent on stopping the war, then there's no reason to fire missiles.

"Shouldn't we go ahead and try to end the war?", you may ask. What happens next? Which dictator will take Assad's place? Unless we know who intends to take Assad's place, it's asinine to think we'll accomplish anything by getting involved in the war.

Remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? I know where he can shove it.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

Honestly, we need to stay out of Syria.

It seems we just might. Russia proposed that Syria give up their chemical weapons, to which they seem to be agreeing. Probably won't change much, as Hahiha said,
And it just seems hypocritical to say "We (Us, UN and stuff) prohibited the use of chemical weapons" and go play police and spank their rear ends, so that Syria learns to be a good, moral country and kill their people with "normal" weapons.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

Remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?


what? he did? for what reason? being 1 of the very few american presidents that didn't start a war? (yet)
if he deserves a peace prize then i deserve a peace prize... who bought this prize for him? there must be something fishy there. obama is not a bad guy but he certainly doesn't deserve a peace prize.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

what? he did?


Yep.

for what reason?


"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

obama is not a bad guy but he certainly doesn't deserve a peace prize.

He said that himself.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

I belive, that maybe, just maybe, by small chance, our fella SoireeDemon was sarcastic.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210
stinkyjim
offline
stinkyjim
487 posts
1,585

I'll admit, President Obama is actually handling the situation like a real leader. Unlike Bush, he doesn't launch strikes against other countries without trying diplomacy and he is asking congress for their opinion on the matter. I doubt Syria will simply hand over their chemical weapons like that though, even with Russia pressuring them. I have a feeling they'll try everything they can to prevent handing over their chemical weapons, and force our hand.
Not sure if this has been discussed before, but what makes chemical weapons so much more hated than simply spraying the crowd with bullets? Wouldn't chemical weapons, if lethal enough, be more humane? It would most likely kill them quickly and disperse the crowd. It must be better than having a bullet pierce your chest and cause one of your lungs to fill with blood or something like that.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

Unlike Bush, he doesn't launch strikes against other countries without trying diplomacy and he is asking congress for their opinion on the matter.

Bush did get overwhelming congressional approval to do stuff [see Patriot Act and AUMF]. The difference is, Bush had a lot of support due to what happened because everyone wanted something done. Obama was pretty much alone on this because it's a foreign thing in a civil war that doesn't impact us nationally, (perhaps a touch emotionally, but not enough to start another war), so he knew he'd be politically screwed without support. And his goal wasn't even to stop the violence, just to slap them on the wrist and make the fight a little more fair. Further, helping the rebels could empower extremists and create another Afghanistan.

I doubt Syria will simply hand over their chemical weapons like that though, even with Russia pressuring them. I have a feeling they'll try everything they can to prevent handing over their chemical weapons, and force our hand.

Nah, they'll give 'em up. If they don't, they'd be forcing Russia's hand first, and they really don't want that. Russia will likely reimburse them with strong conventional weapons that are deemed 'ok'.

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but what makes chemical weapons so much more hated than simply spraying the crowd with bullets? Wouldn't chemical weapons, if lethal enough, be more humane? It would most likely kill them quickly and disperse the crowd.

I think it's that bullets are more direct, instant, and accurate, while chemicals can linger and be dangerous over time and harm indiscriminately. And the ones that are commonly used usually cause slow, painful deaths and injuries for psychological and morale purposes.
Showing 31-44 of 44