Are we going to war with Syria or Russia?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
What is up with Russia? They mad they're about to lose their biggest Weapons buyer or something if we attack that genocidal Syrian military? Putin sure is trying to bring back the Cold War...NetherscourgePutin like selling weapons, he also like his Mediterranean naval base.
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Well, damn. Maybe he should head to Syria and straighten out their mess himself. He stands around doing nothing except criticizing the US for threatening his own interests, never mind that thousands of people are murdered a month there. Hell, Syria is probably using chemical weapons sold to them buy Putin himself.outworld222Over 100,000 people have died in this civil war. Why is it okay for that many people to be shot or blown up, but when a few hundred or thousand are gassed it's suddenly an issue? Are those that were gassed any more dead than those that were shot? This coming war is not, nor has it ever been, about humanitarianism. Humanitarianism and war are not compatible. The notion that the US government understands enough about the situation and the people involved to decide which are the "good guys" is absurd. On one side you have a dictator and on the other you have Islamic extremist rebel groups. No matter who wins, the people of Syria will suffer. There is no good that can be done by an imperialist foreign government getting more involved than they already have been. No it's not okay that a 100,000 people have died/ If anything, we should have been involved earlier. So your statement is an oxymoron in many respects. But believe the use of chemical weapons broke the straw on the camel. I don't understand your logic. What are you basing your arguments on? Well nothing for nothing this war has been going on for almost three years and there has been no intervention yet. And this is not the first report of chemical weapons being used. If you look at the reports from last year and earlier this year they have already been used. Why all of sudden after three years of thousands of lives lost, whether it be women or children, are we now saying that what happened a week ago is some how crossing the red line? Did any of the other events not matter when there were 1000's of lives lost then?
[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="famicommander"] Over 100,000 people have died in this civil war. Why is it okay for that many people to be shot or blown up, but when a few hundred or thousand are gassed it's suddenly an issue? Are those that were gassed any more dead than those that were shot? This coming war is not, nor has it ever been, about humanitarianism. Humanitarianism and war are not compatible. The notion that the US government understands enough about the situation and the people involved to decide which are the "good guys" is absurd. On one side you have a dictator and on the other you have Islamic extremist rebel groups. No matter who wins, the people of Syria will suffer. There is no good that can be done by an imperialist foreign government getting more involved than they already have been.famicommanderNo it's not okay that a 100,000 people have died/ If anything, we should have been involved earlier. So your statement is an oxymoron in many respects. But believe the use of chemical weapons broke the straw on the camel. I don't understand your logic. What are you basing your arguments on? Well nothing for nothing this war has been going on for almost three years and there has been no intervention yet. And this is not the first report of chemical weapons being used. If you look at the reports from last year and earlier this year they have already been used. Why all of sudden after three years of thousands of lives lost, whether it be women or children, are we now saying that what happened a week ago is some how crossing the red line? Did any of the other events not matter when there were 1000's of lives lost then?
Because, despite the regimes use of WMD in the past, obama said use of Chem weapons in the future would be the red line. If he doesn't take any actions now, it means his word means nothing, and it is a green light for Syria to use WMD again, making the conflict even bigger.
Over 100,000 people have died in this civil war.
Why is it okay for that many people to be shot or blown up, but when a few hundred or thousand are gassed it's suddenly an issue? Are those that were gassed any more dead than those that were shot?
This coming war is not, nor has it ever been, about humanitarianism. Humanitarianism and war are not compatible. The notion that the US government understands enough about the situation and the people involved to decide which are the "good guys" is absurd. On one side you have a dictator and on the other you have Islamic extremist rebel groups. No matter who wins, the people of Syria will suffer. There is no good that can be done by an imperialist foreign government getting more involved than they already have been.
No it's not okay that a 100,000 people have died/ If anything, we should have been involved earlier. So your statement is an oxymoron in many respects.
But believe the use of chemical weapons broke the straw on the camel. I don't understand your logic. What are you basing your arguments on?
My point is that if the US government were interested in humanitarianism they would have become involved much earlier. And also, there is genocide still going on in the world today (see: Sudan, Burma) and the US says nothing about it. US motivation for entering this war has nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with positioning itself in the region in relation to Iran, Russia, and China. It's a proxy war pissing contest and none of the parties involved care about the well being of your average Syrian civilian. The US government only gets involved when it feels it has something to gain. There are millions of people being oppressed and murdered by their governments as we speak and the US government does nothing. They do nothing because the US does not gain anything by stopping the slaughter of Sudanese or Burmese civilians. You obviously do not know what the word "oxymoron" means and you obviously do not understand history. Every aggressive war of imperialism the US has ever been involved in has started with the pretense of humanitarianism, most recently Iraq in 2003.
I'm against the Iraqi war. But.....you cannot allow somebody, ANYBODY, to get away so callously with WMD. The very reason I did not support the operation in Iraq was because there were never any WMD. The US now believes this. But understand that this war will not stop because both sides will not stop. We must tip the scales in favor of the SFA. The regime will kill anybody it doesn't like. Do you understand that? Have you ever lived there? Because I have. My family is from there, and I still have family there
Well nothing for nothing this war has been going on for almost three years and there has been no intervention yet. And this is not the first report of chemical weapons being used. If you look at the reports from last year and earlier this year they have already been used. Why all of sudden after three years of thousands of lives lost, whether it be women or children, are we now saying that what happened a week ago is some how crossing the red line? Did any of the other events not matter when there were 1000's of lives lost then?[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="outworld222"] No it's not okay that a 100,000 people have died/ If anything, we should have been involved earlier. So your statement is an oxymoron in many respects. But believe the use of chemical weapons broke the straw on the camel. I don't understand your logic. What are you basing your arguments on?outworld222
Because, despite the regimes use of WMD in the past, obama said use of Chem weapons in the future would be the red line. If he doesn't take any actions now, it means his word means nothing, and it is a green light for Syria to use WMD again, making the conflict even bigger. So the justification for war is that we can't let Obama look like an ass in front of other countries? Sorry, not good enough. I don't give a rat's dick about the president's reputation. It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved.
[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="famicommander"] Well nothing for nothing this war has been going on for almost three years and there has been no intervention yet. And this is not the first report of chemical weapons being used. If you look at the reports from last year and earlier this year they have already been used. Why all of sudden after three years of thousands of lives lost, whether it be women or children, are we now saying that what happened a week ago is some how crossing the red line? Did any of the other events not matter when there were 1000's of lives lost then?
famicommander
Because, despite the regimes use of WMD in the past, obama said use of Chem weapons in the future would be the red line. If he doesn't take any actions now, it means his word means nothing, and it is a green light for Syria to use WMD again, making the conflict even bigger. So the justification for war is that we can't let Obama look like an ass in front of other countries? Sorry, not good enough. I don't give a rat's dick about the president's reputation. It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved. I was just answering your question. No need for all this. You clearly have no sympathy for future lives that will die unnecessarily should we not get involved.
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="outworld222"]So the justification for war is that we can't let Obama look like an ass in front of other countries? Sorry, not good enough. I don't give a rat's dick about the president's reputation. It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved. I was just answering your question. No need for all this. You clearly have no sympathy for future lives that will die unnecessarily should we not get involved. You think less people will die if we start bombing a country? Are you sure you know how this works?
Because, despite the regimes use of WMD in the past, obama said use of Chem weapons in the future would be the red line. If he doesn't take any actions now, it means his word means nothing, and it is a green light for Syria to use WMD again, making the conflict even bigger.outworld222
It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved.famicommanderMore deaths will result either way actually....
More deaths will result either way actually.... So the right option is clear.[QUOTE="famicommander"] It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]More deaths will result either way actually.... So the right option is clear. I think different people will have a different opinion on right option.....so that's not saying much.[QUOTE="famicommander"] It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved.The_Lipscomb
[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="famicommander"] You think less people will die if we start bombing a country? Are you sure you know how this works?famicommanderAre you sure about that? Yes. Have you ever served in a military? No, because I'm not a sociopath.
Â
Are you sure about that?
[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="famicommander"] Over 100,000 people have died in this civil war. Why is it okay for that many people to be shot or blown up, but when a few hundred or thousand are gassed it's suddenly an issue? Are those that were gassed any more dead than those that were shot? This coming war is not, nor has it ever been, about humanitarianism. Humanitarianism and war are not compatible. The notion that the US government understands enough about the situation and the people involved to decide which are the "good guys" is absurd. On one side you have a dictator and on the other you have Islamic extremist rebel groups. No matter who wins, the people of Syria will suffer. There is no good that can be done by an imperialist foreign government getting more involved than they already have been.famicommanderNo it's not okay that a 100,000 people have died/ If anything, we should have been involved earlier. So your statement is an oxymoron in many respects. But believe the use of chemical weapons broke the straw on the camel. I don't understand your logic. What are you basing your arguments on? My point is that if the US government were interested in humanitarianism they would have become involved much earlier. And also, there is genocide still going on in the world today (see: Sudan, Burma) and the US says nothing about it. US motivation for entering this war has nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with positioning itself in the region in relation to Iran, Russia, and China. It's a proxy war pissing contest and none of the parties involved care about the well being of your average Syrian civilian. The US government only gets involved when it feels it has something to gain. There are millions of people being oppressed and murdered by their governments as we speak and the US government does nothing. They do nothing because the US does not gain anything by stopping the slaughter of Sudanese or Burmese civilians. You obviously do not know what the word "oxymoron" means and you obviously do not understand history. Every aggressive war of imperialism the US has ever been involved in has started with the pretense of humanitarianism, most recently Iraq in 2003.
Â
Selective Humanitarianism is still Humanitarianism.
I will say though that the Iraq War circa 2003 was a complete joke. Saddam did gas his own people - decades earlier though. And it turned out they never had any WMDs to justify the whole military action over there. That war was just baffling on every level.
al Hassad, on the other hand, is gassing his people right now. In addition to machine-gunning them and rocket-attacking them. And he's doing it publicly without any regard for international condemnation. (except Russia of course, who supplies the Syrian army)
My point is that if the US government were interested in humanitarianism they would have become involved much earlier. And also, there is genocide still going on in the world today (see: Sudan, Burma) and the US says nothing about it. US motivation for entering this war has nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with positioning itself in the region in relation to Iran, Russia, and China. It's a proxy war pissing contest and none of the parties involved care about the well being of your average Syrian civilian. The US government only gets involved when it feels it has something to gain. There are millions of people being oppressed and murdered by their governments as we speak and the US government does nothing. They do nothing because the US does not gain anything by stopping the slaughter of Sudanese or Burmese civilians. You obviously do not know what the word "oxymoron" means and you obviously do not understand history. Every aggressive war of imperialism the US has ever been involved in has started with the pretense of humanitarianism, most recently Iraq in 2003.[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="outworld222"] No it's not okay that a 100,000 people have died/ If anything, we should have been involved earlier. So your statement is an oxymoron in many respects. But believe the use of chemical weapons broke the straw on the camel. I don't understand your logic. What are you basing your arguments on?Netherscourge
Â
Selective Humanitariumism is still Humanitariumism.
I will say though that the Iraq War circa 2003 was a complete joke. Saddam did gas his own people - decades earlier though. And it turned out they never had any WMDs to justify the whole military action over there. That war was just baffling on every level.
al Hassad, on the other hand, is gassing his people right now. In addition to machine-gunning them and rocket-attacking them. And he's doing it publicly without any regard for international condemnation. (except Russia of course, who supplies the Syrian army)
Just to correct your middle statement...I wouldn't say it's correct to say they never had WMDS.[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]More deaths will result either way actually....LJS9502_basicSo the right option is clear. I think different people will have a different opinion on right option.....so that's not saying much. lol
[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="famicommander"] So the justification for war is that we can't let Obama look like an ass in front of other countries? Sorry, not good enough. I don't give a rat's dick about the president's reputation. It's not worth a SINGLE life, let alone the thousands more that are sure to die if we get involved.famicommanderI was just answering your question. No need for all this. You clearly have no sympathy for future lives that will die unnecessarily should we not get involved. You think less people will die if we start bombing a country? Are you sure you know how this works?
Well, let's be honest here...
The Syrian People have two options: Live with Oppression or Die fighting for Freedom.
It's a revolution. People will die no matter WHAT happens at this point.Â
The question now is: HOW will they die and for WHAT will they be dying?
If al Assad wins, he'll round up the families and friends of the rebels and torture/murder them all to make an example of them and to instill fear in any potential uprisers.
It'll also mark a precedent where any government can kill it's own people if they fear being overthrown or losing their power.
Either way - people will die. Guaranteed.
Better to die fighting for a good cause than to die not fighting for anything.
[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you are out of touch with reality.....LJS9502_basicNo, I believe it is the military worshipers around this country that are out of touch. The US has committed countless war crimes since these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. Joining the military means you are implicitly accepting that you may be ordered to commit a war crime. If you're considering joining the military, you should first ask yourself whether you're okay with murdering innocent people just because a superior officer ordered you to. Because there have been thousands of people killed in "collateral damage", and each one of those deaths is attributable to an individual that voluntarily joined the military. Killing people is what the military does. War crimes are subjective to start with.....and after reading the rest of your post....you are most certainly out of touch with reality, You have ZERO knowledge of the military, the laws of engagement etc.,...but hey you sure are and edgy kid. I am not a kid, and the laws of engagement can be and are disregarded on a regular basis, as Bradley Manning has demonstrated. Sort of like how the US government is technically constrained by the Constitution, but chooses to disregard it on a daily basis at its convenience. Bush and Obama have all but abolished the Fourth Amendment. It's fine if you want to bury your head in the sand and support the largest imperialistic force in the history of the world, but don't act like that's not what you're doing.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="famicommander"] No, because I'm not a sociopath.famicommanderWell you are out of touch with reality..... No, I believe it is the military worshipers around this country that are out of touch. The US has committed countless war crimes since these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. Joining the military means you are implicitly accepting that you may be ordered to commit a war crime. If you're considering joining the military, you should first ask yourself whether you're okay with murdering innocent people just because a superior officer ordered you to. Because there have been thousands of people killed in "collateral damage", and each one of those deaths is attributable to an individual that voluntarily joined the military. Killing people is what the military does.
When did a US military Officer order a subordinate to murder thousands of innocent people?
My thoughts on Syria: Like Puerto Rico, I am not sure whether or not they are ready for statehood, but I think we should let them make that decision. This could be very relevant to the 2016 election, BTW, as it is going to be very close.
I'm against the Iraqi war. But.....you cannot allow somebody, ANYBODY, to get away so callously with WMD. The very reason I did not support the operation in Iraq was because there were never any WMD. The US now believes this. But understand that this war will not stop because both sides will not stop. We must tip the scales in favor of the SFA. The regime will kill anybody it doesn't like. Do you understand that? Have you ever lived there? Because I have. My family is from there, and I still have family thereoutworld222Saddam used chemical weapons against civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack We should only act if the UN acts.
[QUOTE="outworld222"]I'm against the Iraqi war. But.....you cannot allow somebody, ANYBODY, to get away so callously with WMD. The very reason I did not support the operation in Iraq was because there were never any WMD. The US now believes this. But understand that this war will not stop because both sides will not stop. We must tip the scales in favor of the SFA. The regime will kill anybody it doesn't like. Do you understand that? Have you ever lived there? Because I have. My family is from there, and I still have family thereguynamedbillySaddam used chemical weapons against civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack We should only act if the UN acts. Assad also did.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="outworld222"]I'm against the Iraqi war. But.....you cannot allow somebody, ANYBODY, to get away so callously with WMD. The very reason I did not support the operation in Iraq was because there were never any WMD. The US now believes this. But understand that this war will not stop because both sides will not stop. We must tip the scales in favor of the SFA. The regime will kill anybody it doesn't like. Do you understand that? Have you ever lived there? Because I have. My family is from there, and I still have family thereoutworld222Saddam used chemical weapons against civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack We should only act if the UN acts. Assad also did. If you call it a WMD in Syria, why not call it a WMD in Iraq? You said you didn't support the operation in Iraq because there were never any WMD. That was my only point. This will be the Iraq of the next decade if we attack.
Russia's not dumb enough to go to war with France and the U.S. for Assad and the U.S. and France aren't dumb enough to go to war with Russia over a little gassing.
No, I believe it is the military worshipers around this country that are out of touch. The US has committed countless war crimes since these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. Joining the military means you are implicitly accepting that you may be ordered to commit a war crime. If you're considering joining the military, you should first ask yourself whether you're okay with murdering innocent people just because a superior officer ordered you to. Because there have been thousands of people killed in "collateral damage", and each one of those deaths is attributable to an individual that voluntarily joined the military. Killing people is what the military does.[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well you are out of touch with reality.....Netherscourge
When did a US military Officer order a subordinate to murder thousands of innocent people?
Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
The US is acting in its own interests. Russia is acting on its own interests...so is Assad, so is Iran, so is Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc. This conflict goes completely beyond good and evil. To frame this conflict in such terms is naive.MetalGear_Ninty
Acting in your own interest and the broader interest of the international community are not mutually exclusive concepts.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]The US is acting in its own interests. Russia is acting on its own interests...so is Assad, so is Iran, so is Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc. This conflict goes completely beyond good and evil. To frame this conflict in such terms is naive.SUD123456
Acting in your own interest and the broader interest of the international community are not mutually exclusive concepts.
They aren't, but it IS usually the case. If the U.S. was really going in on a purely humanitarian basis, they would have been actively expanding into other areas and helping proactively. And the "International community" doesn't really have a voice. Only the ruling elite do.[QUOTE="SUD123456"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]The US is acting in its own interests. Russia is acting on its own interests...so is Assad, so is Iran, so is Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc. This conflict goes completely beyond good and evil. To frame this conflict in such terms is naive.chrisrooR
Acting in your own interest and the broader interest of the international community are not mutually exclusive concepts.
They aren't, but it IS usually the case. If the U.S. was really going in on a purely humanitarian basis, they would have been actively expanding into other areas and helping proactively. And the "International community" doesn't really have a voice. Only the ruling elite do.Who said anything about the international community interest being a humanitarian interest in this case?
Also, LOL @ the ruling elite comment.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment