Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Climb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

Posted Aug 28, '13 at 9:20am

danielo

danielo

1,760 posts

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)

 

Posted Aug 28, '13 at 4:31pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,545 posts

Moderator

Did...Did you just make a Sabaton reference? I mean, I get 120 Danielo points, but you get 120 Freakenstein points and a nod from Joakim Broden.

I think we can be friends.

 

Posted Aug 29, '13 at 5:27pm

stinkyjim

stinkyjim

487 posts

I think that the United States should sit back and watch how it plays out for once. If the United States gets involved, then even more lives would be lost.

 

Posted Aug 29, '13 at 5:50pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

I think that the United States should sit back and watch how it plays out for once.

That would be nice, and arming rebels isn't always the best plan, but on top of the estimated 100K+ deaths that occurred during the present inaction, Obama basically made a policy promise similar to the kind that lead to Vietnam. For that war, the government vowed to intervene if communism was spreading, which it did, and the US got involved. Obama drew the line on the use of chemical weapons, which were used. Flip-flopping on that claim/threat/promise would cost a lot of political credibility, as well as making America seem like an "all bark, no bite" nation.
 

Posted Aug 29, '13 at 10:57pm

stinkyjim

stinkyjim

487 posts

The chemical weapons were certainly a big slap to the face, but why should the United States care. Let the United Nations handle it. If all things turn for the worst, we could sanction Syria off from the rest of the world like North Korea; While providing supplies to the citizens of course.
Why should we be the country that has to be in everyone's face? All he other countries have agreed that military action against Syria would not solve anything.

 

Posted Aug 30, '13 at 2:19am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,471 posts

Knight

Obama drew the line on the use of chemical weapons, which were used. Flip-flopping on that claim/threat/promise would cost a lot of political credibility, as well as making America seem like an "all bark, no bite" nation.

I understand this is mainly the reason Obama wants to "punish" Syria by making a few attacks that will do more bad than good (makes as much sense as hitting a wasps nest).

But, we still lack convincing proof that Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks. Carla del Ponte claims since long that they have evidence that the rebels were using them before. Now it seems the most recent attack could well come from someone in the Syria military, but we don't know who.

However also understand that Assad said he wouldn't be using chemical weapons, unless another country intervenes. What did the US do? Send military people to Syria and train the rebels. So if it was actually Assad, we could argue that it could as well be the US fault.

---

Now, I don't understand how the big country leaders are suddenly so darn offuscated about the use of chemical weapons, when thousands of people were already killed looong before. I mean, dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are quite dirty and kill many people, so do nukes. 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.

We should have intervened long ago, or not at all.
 

Posted Aug 30, '13 at 4:16pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,889 posts

Let the United Nations handle it.


Because the UN is such an exemplar body for solving the world's problems. /sarcasm

Just let them kill each other off. The US gains nothing by going in; it's just a cluster ***** of bad situations and worst case scenarios. If anything, Assad is the lesser of all evils since he atleast managed to keep his borders secure and didn't do much to bother Israel.
 

Posted Aug 30, '13 at 9:22pm

UnleashedUponMankind

UnleashedUponMankind

9,107 posts

Moderator

Let the United Nations handle it. If all things turn for the worst, we could sanction Syria off from the rest of the world like North Korea;


The UN cant do anything, simply because of the russian particular interests, they have a marine-base in tartus, their only direct access to the mediterranean sea.
Besides this russia have monetary interests (arm-trades for example).
And this are not the only reasons why russia block the UN, and because of this russian acting the UN cant do anything.
 

Posted Sep 1, '13 at 5:03am

danielo

danielo

1,760 posts

But, we still lack convincing proof that Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks. Carla del Ponte claims since long that they have evidence that the rebels were using them before. Now it seems the most recent attack could well come from someone in the Syria military, but we don't know who


How? With there stolen guns? These rebels are mostly Normal citizenes called to arm. They are no rocket engeineers. Do activated these things you need to know how to use it. Its not a dynite stick you set on fire and Boom.



What i found annoying is the comments of both USAians anti-war supporters and USA haters.

The haters are niether Arabic butthurt ("Its USS fault! Anything is there fault") or Smuggish european ("They want oil!"), But the realy annoying one are the anti-war peoples. I mean, dont you read the news? "USA shouldnt start another war" - USA didnt start a war for the past 80 years i belive. Name one and get 100 Danielo points.
"Its an ileagal war" - So only when they see in there own eyes a forigen solider killing the president, and even then only if he show and ID and a DNA test to prrove he is from another country its ok? I swwar, i even saw a conspiracy claiming USA did the chemicals attack to get Syria oil (BTW, Syria dont have that much oil).

And for last "Why USA have to be the world police/stick it nose everywher?"
Because someone have to. And the UN is awsome at blaming Israel and even use sanctions. They are good at saying "Thats bad!" But when in Uganda a genocide going on, it take them 4 years to end the "invastigation".

And above all, USA is the main power in the world. If they want to remine so, they have to enforce there strength over these who try to dig under it and under what it represent.


For summary, If USA attack a while ago, peoples whould clime Assad didnt used chemicals and so on. Now they have the proof. Befor he could have lied. Now he cant.
 

Posted Sep 1, '13 at 1:56pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,889 posts

What I find hilarious is the flip flopping politicians are doing.

"Oh god, we'll never start another war like Bush did! We've learned our lesson with Iraq!"

Then...

""We have to attack Syria! They've used chemical weapons and stuff! Sure, they pose no threat to the US, and we get nothing ou of it, and it'll be really expensive, and we'll wind up supporting terrorists, and this will piss of the Russians and Iranians but... Think of the children!"

 
Reply to Climb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

You must be logged in to post a reply!