What are your thoughts?
Should someone stop it?
Should the USA intervene?
Can you even find this country on a map without cheating?
Printable View
What are your thoughts?
Should someone stop it?
Should the USA intervene?
Can you even find this country on a map without cheating?
Honestly the situation is so convoluted it's not even funny. And that's just from the American Politics that may have an effect on the region. Sadly the world isn't going to do a damn thing unless the U.S. gets involved. It's just a shame no one will even accept my idea as a plausible one to get things done. Just dangle a nuclear bomb (figuratively) over their heads and give them 1 month to get things straight or die in a nuclear blast. Funny enough, the same thing will cure the issues in Egypt and Israel/Palestine. But no, Instead this whole thing is either going to end up like Libya or like Rwanda. Either we do enough work so that the rebels can do things on their own, or we do nothing at all but watch hundreds of thousands die and more become refugees (as if that hasn't already happened or close to happening).
I'll be honest, I probably cant find this country on a map.
Most of the banter I've been seeing about this has been about morality, and freedom, and all that junk. No one is giving thought to how much time and money are going to be wasted on this. Not to mention more potential lives if troops are dropped in by us (Americans). I think this should be handled by people of that part of the world regardless of who says what. Most of the countries there are going through a nasty phase of deciding whether or not to drop Islamic Fundamentalism as a grounds for applying law, and this is just one of the nasty side effects of that.
I think America should avoid this whole thing like the plague. In the past we've seen what can happen if you try playing to either side. If you held the leader, you get an oppressive regime that will crack down on its own people; if you help the rebels you end up with a government filled with pissed off teenagers.
lol I know what you mean, luckily because the news has started showing a map of it, I know it's just North of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serated
It's a bit more complicated than that, because some of the rebels are terrorists, as John McCain experience when he was a victim of a terrorist photobomb while in Syria meeting the rebels (joke stolen from The Daily Show). We don't want to support them and have our weapons end up in their hands (as if that's never happened before). Islamic Fundamentalism actually has little to do with this (other than terrorist being involved), but rather the people just want a change in government. At the same time though, if we went in just like in Libya, there won't be any boots on the ground, Syrian government anti-aircraft and artillery batteries will be disabled, and the people will find for their country mostly on their own with only a little help to keep things equal. At the same time, this notion that the Islamic Community will handle things is merely a dream. Even if they could, they probably wouldn't. Not without us, definitely.Quote:
Most of the banter I've been seeing about this has been about morality, and freedom, and all that junk. No one is giving thought to how much time and money are going to be wasted on this. Not to mention more potential lives if troops are dropped in by us (Americans). I think this should be handled by people of that part of the world regardless of who says what. Most of the countries there are going through a nasty phase of deciding whether or not to drop Islamic Fundamentalism as a grounds for applying law, and this is just one of the nasty side effects of that.
I agree, but I feel we're going to get put in a situation where either we can't just not help them, or it'll haunt us forever like the Rwandan Genocide.Quote:
I think America should avoid this whole thing like the plague. In the past we've seen what can happen if you try playing to either side. If you held the leader, you get an oppressive regime that will crack down on its own people; if you help the rebels you end up with a government filled with pissed off teenagers.
i agree, serated. Syria is not a part of America, and it's not our concern how many thousands of people die in the streets. our president's oath is to this country, not to the whole world.
but, wel'll probablyend up playing Team America: World Police anyway, if Obama's statements are enough to go by at this time. if every time civil war breaks out someplace, the president decides he has to Do The Right Thing, we'll have a civil war at home too (figuratively of course).
i don't know why we can't take a page from thehistory books on this one. during the american civil war, other countries stayed out (except to supply arms to either side and profit a bit), and look how murica turned out. i'm not saying everything will turn out peachy in syria, i'm saying we're a third party with no authority to step in. it's simply not our business.
you might say But horrendous, people are dying over there! so what. sometimes bad things happen, and if the U.S. tries to mop up every political spill that occurs on this planet, we'll be borrowing more money to fund our many, many wars. america should not be The World Police. enough people are suffering on the home front to keep us quite busy, but instead Obama wants to spend his political capital elsewhere.
damn Obama, i used to think you were cool.
Yea, but if you look at history, you know we'll have to do something and there's no acceptable excuse as to why not. I mean, it's been this way since the Spanish American War.
lemme put it this way: the American President has a sworn oath to protect a certain country, and it isn't Syria. can you guess what country it is?
Technically, the Spanish American war gave the US the ability to sort of police its particular hemisphere. And we can barely even do that, I mean, Mexico might as well be classified as a narco-state; but that's completely off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathBlade/13.666
And you're right absolutely right on notion of Islamic Fund., its has little to do with this. But it might come to play a big role if Assad is removed or stays. So that's just another notch on the whole, there are no winners to this war. If Assad wins, the people get stuck with a dictator they hate, but at least government. If the rebels win, they will have no government in a wrecked country. I think now might be a better time to give diplomacy a chance, rather than rolling out the guns.
On another note, to play devil's advocate on Rwanda, as tragic as that was, it probably would have made little difference in the grand scheme of things. That terrible event certainly didnt stop the 2nd Congo war, Darfur, or the menagerie of other terrible conflicts in Africa that have come and gone. We intervened on Somalia once before, helped out a bit, then left; and even after all that, Somalia is barely even a country.
While not untrue, the battle lines are drawn along ethnic/religious lines. It's a nasty situation. But the one thing both sides can seem to agree on is that once they're in control the next groups to make trouble for are Israel and the US. Maybe there are some rebels sympathetic to the US, but it isn't clear at all they'd be able to be charge if they won.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathBlade/13.666
As far as US interests go, the best thing would probably be if this fight goes the distance. I suppose optimally the warriors would just kill each other off until only peaceful people are left.
Personally I find it very sad that is the case.
We should stay out of this. We are not big brother to the rescue. We are that nosy neighbor that peers over everyones fences and inviting ourselves over to other peoples family cook outs uninvited yet unable to be turned away. The rest of the world laughs at us as we are the biggest joke ever. The more we get involved in matters unrelated to our own personal matters the more likely something will go down, on our own soil. We're not invincible, green lighting the killing of all of our willing men and women for non-homeland threatening reasons is unnecessary. These people would not come to our rescue no matter how much we'd like to think they would. All we'd get is a "well... they had it coming"
I don't think we should strike Syria. One of the major rebel groups there is Al-Qaeda and it doesn't make any sense to me that we've been fighting them for over 10 years and suddenly we are going to help them? What if we do attack and Al-Qaeda takes control and finds and uses those chemical weapons on their own people again? Wouldn't be a waste? People will continue to die and it wouldn't solve anything. President Obama says he doesn't plan a war, but it's highly possible it may happen since Iran threats an attack on Israel if the U.S strikes. And even more likely since Russia and China made threat of "catastrophic consequences" if the U.S attacks.
Though I do understand it's a serious issue since it involves chemical weapons but they need to take it just as serious. I mean, in the Syria testimony with Congress, I believe was yesterday, John McCain was playing poker on his phone through the whole thing! They need to think of a way that could convince Russia and China that they should act. Not just "Oh, let's just bomb them because we think the Syrian government used the chemical weapons on their own people."
Honestly, it's really a damned if we do damned if we don't situation.
Other nations are fed up with America trying to police, especially in the Middle Eastern states.
At the same time though , if we don't intervene. Then other nations wonder why America is not providing aid, or intervening to prevent/diffuse conflict. Then piss on us by saying we as a superpower are one of the greatest "terrorist nations" there are.
My personal views on it, we aren't in position to be providing aid to anyway, we have too much of a mess in our own back yard that needs to be cleaned up. I have never understood why we provide aid to nations that would have us destroyed.
It's interesting to note that they are increasing the troop number in Iraq. I think the reason they are building the troop numbers is in preparation for war first with Syria, and then with Iran. Iraq is on one side of Iran, and Afghanistan is on the other. Have you guys heard what is happening in Syria? The hard evidence shows that it was the US-backed rebels that are using the Sarin gas, not Assad's government. To make matters worse, the rebels that we are backing include members of Al-Qaeda and other militant muslim factions that have been implicated in attacks all over the Middle East.
If we go in against Assad in Syria, they are linked by defense treaty to Iran, so it will be war with Iran as well, which is what these puppets in government want. The problem is Iran is linked to both China and Russia with defense treaties, just as we are linked to NATO, the EU, and most of the western world. If this thing pops over there, it will be WWIII in a matter of hours.
My man Ben Swann has this issue handled.
http://benswann.com/sec-of-state-joh...weapons-claim/
I find it ironic that the US decides to support the very faction that led to 9/11. They should stay out of this war, they have meddled far too much into other peoples business. Most Syrians I came into contact with say they have no complaints over Assads regime. If you take a look you will notice that most of these "freedom fighters" are foreign backed mercs coming from Jordan/Israel/Turkey and supplied by the US and mingled with the different terrorist groups. It is basicly funding the terrorists because I fail to see any freedom fighters amongst them. Wont even go into the attrocities that they commited. Heard of Ma'loula the christian village? Forced conversion to the true Islam or else you are brutally executed.
As far as using chemicals like sarin I have a few doubts about that. First of Assad was wining the fight, why would he resort to an old easily detectable gas when he knows the UN would intervene if it was used? Plus it was used in a populated area in their own teritory and even their own troops had casaulties. Another thing that boggles me is the low victim count, only around a thousand people even tho it was used in a densly populated area? It all smells of foul play. The world is getting sick and tired of the US and their "oh you have weapons of mass destruction let us bring you some democracy" policy. Besides they have no right to judge others for using chem weapons since they are the ones that sent 2 nukes to Japan, scorched the soil of Vietnam with countless napalm bombs and agent orange and oh not to mention how they bombed my country with depleted uranium shells and cluster bombs all forbiden by the very same UN. We are still feeling consequences.
If they proceed to bomb Syria we may very well have a WW3 on our hands, and if not then it will be a huge chaos in that area and a massive destabilisation that may very well lead to a WW3.
Didn't post in a long time but this caught my eye. ~_~