Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Climb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

Posted Sep 1, '13 at 4:47pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,440 posts

Knight

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.

Who's to say they didn't get help?

And for last "Why USA have to be the world police/stick it nose everywher?" Because someone have to.

Is that so? Any attack will only make the whole situation worse.

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.

Assad was good for the US, because he kept the region relatively stable. With the rebels come the extremists. Who are the US supporting? The rebels. If they're trying to enforce their strength, they're doing a piss-poor job.
Also, it was stupid to talk about attacking before the UN published their report. Now the wests position is weakened, the governments have no support from the people, their determination crumbles. Great job.

Now they have the proof.

But what proof? Claims? Del Ponte's claims that it was the rebels are at least as trustworthy as some political minister's propaganda.
 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 2:08am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,485 posts

Assad was good for the US, because he kept the region relatively stable.

Crushing dissenters will do that.

Is that so? Any attack will only make the whole situation worse.

Leaving it alone doesn't seem to be working. Maybe sanctions and other legal stuff would do better long-term than a strike, but the UN is such a hassle: They're currently trying to plan to set up a time for a meeting to discuss how to end the war. If they manage to meet, then as soon as something against the current government is proposed, Russia says "nope" and it's a stalemate.
 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 3:24am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,440 posts

Knight

You know, you're right on all points there. I'm not trying to defend Assad; his government has killed thousands of people, as did his family (mostly his father) before in other occasions. I... I don't know what to do of that situation. I mean of course it can't go on as it does, but can we really just attack like that and hope that Assad will be all, "omgosh the Americans mean what they say, let's stop all the attacks and talk"?? No, that won't happen. Obama's "punishment", probably together with France, will at best give a reason for Assad's regime to fight back, at worst, all hell will break lose in the region with wars, and terrorists in Europe and America, and if all goes well, the US will hit chemical weapons, which would be catastrophical for the region.

And yeah, the UN should finally get rid of this 'constant member' veto, it's always Russia and China blocking anyway...

 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 10:08am

danielo

danielo

1,758 posts

I belive that deep in, france want to get control again over Syria. And it can be the best. Many Syrians speak french and maybe, just maybe, a french occupation will end good.

Afcours most chanses are for suicide bombing by Al-quaida and friend.


And about the "the rebels did it" - who in hell helped them? To launch a rocket/fly a missle? The CIA? FBI? NSA? NFL? who? I dont belive anyone tried to make a conspiracy to make USA to attack. This all attack have put USA in a nasty place. If anything, it was a clever move by Assad. Like CzechoSlovakia all over again.

 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 10:11am

danielo

danielo

1,758 posts

And yeah, the UN should finally get rid of this 'constant member' veto, it's always Russia and China blocking anyway...


Without USA veto, the arab league could make the UN sanction Israel again and again, like they always try. But Russia does enjoy this ability too much.
 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 9:45pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

The US has no reason to send our strong men and women to go and die somewhere on the other side of the world. If they're worry about an attack on them, they can go on defense, but they should back away. We don't need our people dying for no REAL reason.

 

Posted Sep 3, '13 at 1:10am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,485 posts

And yeah, the UN should finally get rid of this 'constant member' veto, it's always Russia and China blocking anyway...

It makes more sense to have the strongest players shake hands on a poor compromise instead of getting mad and throwing punches.

maybe, just maybe, a french occupation will end good.

Few nations enjoy being satellites. It would just put France in Assad's position, dealing with extremists on every corner and whatnot, but with many more against 'western imperialism', so it might go the same as Vietnam.

I dont belive anyone tried to make a conspiracy to make USA to attack.

Agreed. If that were the case, it would've happened over a year ago.

Without USA veto, the arab league could make the UN sanction Israel again and again, like they always try. But Russia does enjoy this ability too much.

An inherent trait of pure democracy is that two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner won't go well for the sheep.

The US has no reason to send our strong men and women to go and die somewhere on the other side of the world.

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.
 

Posted Sep 3, '13 at 3:48pm

danielo

danielo

1,758 posts

The US has no reason to send our strong men and women to go and die somewhere on the other side of the world.


Its today Syria tommorow USA. If Iran will get another grip, then they will get Iraq and all the other crumbeling places. And you realy dont want another pearl harbour do you?
 

Posted Sep 4, '13 at 12:37am

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,487 posts

Moderator

Its today Syria tommorow USA. If Iran will get another grip, then they will get Iraq and all the other crumbeling places. And you realy dont want another pearl harbour do you?


Compared to 1943 where the USA had not quite established itself as a world superpower, it's clear in 2013 that we have more defense budget than the top 5 next-highest countries combined. Ignoring the "begging the question" fallacy, it's laughable to imagine Iran mounting an air offensive on us, considering we will see it coming the moment they decide to start stockpiling.
 

Posted Sep 4, '13 at 3:55am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,485 posts

we have more defense budget than the top 5 next-highest countries combined

*10

Ignoring the "begging the question" fallacy

With a spoonful of slippery slope.

it's laughable to imagine Iran mounting an air offensive on us

ikr. Perhaps "another 9/11" would've been more applicable, as a military intervention would likely fuel more anti-Western movements, potentially making more extremists. But for a small nation, forget it. This against that. If it were a game of battleship, they'd be blindfolded with their hands tied starting with a half-dead patrol boat on the board, while our board is full and we cheat in every way imaginable.
 
Reply to Climb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

You must be logged in to post a reply!