Do you support us (America) going to.....

War against Syria?

only if they make a Call of Duty game about it

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

only if they make a Call of Duty game about it

lostrib

Why should we?

Iraq was a disaster and you never had to answer for it, show real evidence this time.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

only if they make a Call of Duty game about it

AmazonTreeBoa

SureDroidPhysX

Why should we?

Iraq was a disaster and you never had to answer for it, show real evidence this time.

MlauTheDaft

decrease the global population?

No, I do not.

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

Oleg_Huzwog

[QUOTE="MlauTheDaft"]

Why should we?

Iraq was a disaster and you never had to answer for it, show real evidence this time.

lostrib

decrease the global population?

While awful and cynical, that's actually a good answer... In the context of being awful and cynical, of course ;)

Absolutely

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Surenomsayin

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

Capitan_Kid

haha, you actually believe that?

only if they make a Call of Duty game about it

lostrib

LMAO. 

Stop making so many threads about USA vs Syria...

Only if the Arab League and the Euros take point. By that, I mean the troops on the ground. The US should stick to providing logistics and air support.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

Capitan_Kid

No. War for humanitarian reasons is the most insanely contradictory thing I've ever seen.

Is this the new "what religion are you (turned flamewar)" in SW? Despite the answer being the same evry time, it's refreshing.

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

lostrib

haha, you actually believe that?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] How about saving innocents? Or is that not good enough for you?Capitan_Kid

haha, you actually believe that?

Matters what type of war. If it like Iraq no, Libya yes.Person0

It can't possibly be like Libya ...

China and Russia abstained from voting on UNSC resolutions authorizing military action against Libya, with the result that those resolutions passed and formed a nominally "legal" basis for the Libyan intervention.

Having seen the Libyan no-fly-zone abused to fly air cover sorties for Islamist terrorists and to conduct direct strikes against Libyan military units, China and Russia won't make the same mistake again: They'll use their veto powers to prevent the UNSC from authorizing military action against Syria.

Without UNSC authorization, a military strike on Syria would constitute a brazen violation of international law.  For that reason alone, the Syrian situation is very different to the Libyan one.

[QUOTE="Person0"]Matters what type of war. If it like Iraq no, Libya yes.Stesilaus

It can't possibly be like Libya ...

China and Russia abstained from voting on UNSC resolutions authorizing military action against Libya, with the result that those resolutions passed and formed a nominally "legal" basis for the Libyan intervention.

Having seen the Libyan no-fly-zone abused to fly air cover sorties for Islamist terrorists and to conduct direct strikes against Libyan military units, China and Russia won't make the same mistake again: They'll use their veto powers to prevent the UNSC from authorizing military action against Syria.

Without UNSC authorization, a military strike on Syria would constitute a brazen violation of international law.  For that reason alone, the Syrian situation is very different to the Libyan one.

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="Person0"]

It can't possibly be like Libya ...

China and Russia abstained from voting on UNSC resolutions authorizing military action against Libya, with the result that those resolutions passed and formed a nominally "legal" basis for the Libyan intervention.

Having seen the Libyan no-fly-zone abused to fly air cover sorties for Islamist terrorists and to conduct direct strikes against Libyan military units, China and Russia won't make the same mistake again: They'll use their veto powers to prevent the UNSC from authorizing military action against Syria.

Without UNSC authorization, a military strike on Syria would constitute a brazen violation of international law.  For that reason alone, the Syrian situation is very different to the Libyan one.

Person0

International law does matter if nations that could confront the US militarily say that it matters.

Russia now has six warships in the Mediterranean, and China has recently sent an amphibious dock landing warship to the region.

Launched in 2011, the 19,000-metric-ton Jinggangshan is a 689-foot-long warship that can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft, according to a report in the China Daily.InvestorsDotCom

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"] Realistically, violating international law like that doesn't matter for the U.S or Russia or any permanent members of the Security Council. Anyways I was talking about it being air power focused, and not alone and helping the right people.Stesilaus

International law does matter if nations that could confront the US militarily say that it matters.

Russia now has six warships in the Mediterranean, and China has recently sent an amphibious dock landing warship to the region.

Launched in 2011, the 19,000-metric-ton Jinggangshan is a 689-foot-long warship that can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft, according to a report in the China Daily.InvestorsDotCom

Matters what type of war. If it like Iraq no, Libya yes.Person0

I'm not a fan of any intervention, but if the evidence becomes public and if the UN makes a compelling conclusion, I can see the justification. However, if countries are intervening solely for "humanitarian" reasons, then they should take responsibility of rebuilding the country (with no political pretension) and not pack their bags once the government falls.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] How about saving innocents? Or is that not good enough for you?Capitan_Kid

haha, you actually believe that?

If we wanted to save innocents, we would not have waited this long to attack Syria.  

I'm sure the syrians are very excited to see what we decide.

I voted yes, but I also want the other world powers and the United Nations to get involved, and police the **bleep*** out of Syria. Then after that, everyone needs to focus on the Fukushima plants. That accident still is not under control or slightly contained. Literally, hundreds tons of radioactive water is seeped into the Pacific Ocean.Alucard_Inoue

It's mildy radioactive, so it will dissapate quickly.  Yeah it's a hassle, but it's not a big of a deal as some media outlets would have you believe.

Some syrians killed some other syrians. Obviously this is unacceptable so we will show them this by killing some syrians.

No, it is a excuse to leverage another country within the Middle East for economic and political gain.. Just like Iraq was.. Trying to save civilians are not on the government's top priority list or things like Darfur and Rwanda would never have happened to the extent they did.. This isn't suggesting that the Syrian leadership is innocent, they are guilty for the deaths of numerous innocents.. The problem is that if this were the main factor to any kind of military action, they would be knocking down quite a few doors.. Hell the US and the West in general has supported and even CREATED many of these bloodthirsty regimes to begin with.. If we are seriously concerned about protecting innocent people, we really need to collectively (that being the west) look at our selves in the mirror because we are responsible for many of those deaths both directly and indirectly historically..

only if they make a Call of Duty game about it

lostrib

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

Capitan_Kid

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

only if they make a Call of Duty game about it

Ricardomz

LMAO. 

Stop making so many threads about USA vs Syria...

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Is there a strategic, economic, or political advantage in doing so?

Capitan_Kid

It's not good enough for the Western governments apparently.. Things like Darfur and Rwandan Genocides were basically flat out ignored by the security council and allowed to happen..

Is this the new "what religion are you (turned flamewar)" in SW? Despite the answer being the same evry time, it's refreshing.

Big_Pecks

Americans should stop worring about other countrys and think about the problems of their own.Stop policing the world,your failing at your own issues.

.The Syrian Rebels Obama Wants To Fight For

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"] Realistically, violating international law like that doesn't matter for the U.S or Russia or any permanent members of the Security Council. Anyways I was talking about it being air power focused, and not alone and helping the right people.Stesilaus

International law does matter if nations that could confront the US militarily say that it matters.

Russia now has six warships in the Mediterranean, and China has recently sent an amphibious dock landing warship to the region.

Launched in 2011, the 19,000-metric-ton Jinggangshan is a 689-foot-long warship that can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft, according to a report in the China Daily.InvestorsDotCom

No. War for humanitarian reasons is the most insanely contradictory thing I've ever seen.

iHarlequin

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"] Realistically, violating international law like that doesn't matter for the U.S or Russia or any permanent members of the Security Council. Anyways I was talking about it being air power focused, and not alone and helping the right people.Stesilaus

International law does matter if nations that could confront the US militarily say that it matters.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090913-670351-administration-pushes-missile-strike-on-syria.htm" title="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090913-670351-administration-pushes-missile-strike-on-syria.htm">Russia now has six warships in the Mediterranean, and China has recently sent an amphibious dock landing warship to the region.

Launched in 2011, the 19,000-metric-ton Jinggangshan is a 689-foot-long warship that can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft, according to a report in the China Daily.InvestorsDotCom

We should have intervened a long time ago.