Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Climb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

Posted Sep 8, '13 at 10:03am

danielo

danielo

1,758 posts

The context was how Iran can get strong and powerfull, even if just to sting the western world, not challange it.

Vietnam - The south cried for help.
Afganistan - there were battles between the crumbeling Democratic government and some militias who opposed Taliban against the Taliban and there allies.
Iraq - As Iraq attacked Quwait, i dont belive USA is the fuse of it.

Its mayby quite lame and cheap; but USA didnt was at the beggining of these wars. They always joind a faction who was already in a fight.

Its like saying that USA started WW1.

And dont dare to touch my points! You will get them when you will deserve them. No points for you!

 

Posted Sep 8, '13 at 2:14pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,485 posts

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.
 

Posted Sep 8, '13 at 6:23pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

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.
 

Posted Sep 8, '13 at 6:32pm

stinkyjim

stinkyjim

476 posts

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.
 

Posted Sep 9, '13 at 2:17pm

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,213 posts

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.
 

Posted Sep 9, '13 at 5:07pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,891 posts

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.

 

Posted Sep 10, '13 at 8:56am

danielo

danielo

1,758 posts

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.

 

Posted Sep 11, '13 at 1:07am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,297 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Sep 11, '13 at 2:57am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,485 posts

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.
 

Posted Sep 11, '13 at 6:02am

partydevil

partydevil

5,200 posts

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.
 
Reply to Climb on the mountains, where Syria awaits

You must be logged in to post a reply!