Will there be American invasion in Syria?
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why we keep thinking this world is getting worse and worse. Maybe it's because of Christianity's influence?
We are about the only world power that still feels like starting wars. All the others from centuries past, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and Japan have stopped doing that. I guess world domination isn't as attractive as it was 500... 200... Or 50 years ago. Yet, we keep thinking that "the end" is right around the corner.
If anything, the world is less violent and more tolerant than before.
We are about the only world power that still feels like starting wars. All the others from centuries past, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and Japan have stopped doing that. I guess world domination isn't as attractive as it was 500... 200... Or 50 years ago. Yet, we keep thinking that "the end" is right around the corner.
If anything, the world is less violent and more tolerant than before.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I don't see us letting Syria decide its on fate is us backing down from Russia. This isn't the Cold War where we are measuring each others wang. Lets get over that. The USA letting Syria decide is progress. It is a sign of strength not weakness. It is a display that we are finally learning from the past and moving on from that mentality which dominated so much of the past century.
If Russia wants to get back to its imperialist/expansionist ways, have at it! Same thig with china! Have at it bros! You'll quickly be reminded on how expensive it is to occupy a country.
If Russia wants to get back to its imperialist/expansionist ways, have at it! Same thig with china! Have at it bros! You'll quickly be reminded on how expensive it is to occupy a country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html
The Administration looks to be forging ahead with some form of military response despite:
Over whelming public resistance to Syrian intervention. Rueters had a poll showing support for an intervention was at 9%! Britain voting against intervention. UN Security Council not agreeing on a resolution. Rebels including groups like Al Qeada.
Insane.
The Administration looks to be forging ahead with some form of military response despite:
Over whelming public resistance to Syrian intervention. Rueters had a poll showing support for an intervention was at 9%! Britain voting against intervention. UN Security Council not agreeing on a resolution. Rebels including groups like Al Qeada.
Insane.
Obama is saying it's cool because no American boots on the ground. Personally I think killing people from a distance and having no skin in the game is pretty disgusting. In no way do I want a single U.S. soldier to die in Syria, but if it isn't worth sending troops, if the mission is not vitally important for the security of the U.S., then it's a situation we should stay out of completely. This idea that it's okay as long as we're killing by remote control and not in person is terrible.
MVP
Well-Known Member
So they say since Assad is responsible for chemical weapon use and killing over 1400 innocent people ( including 400 children) he must be punished. But how? Missile strikes or air force strikes which will undeniably injure or kill more innocent people!? How is that some kind of justice? Are USA so precise with they distance weapons that they can just target Assad's personal residency or forces? Somehow I doubt it.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
They are that precise. They won't target him though.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Why not? Assad is way past the point of no return. He has to go.
Send a drone to his house and then pay off his number 2 guy.
MVP
Well-Known Member
But who gave the right to USA to attack independent country? Syria did not do anything to USA, so whatever is happening within their country should be their problem and should be left for their government and people to deal with. Sooner or later any dictatorship fails - if Assad is so bad he will lose support of most people and will be gone anyway. Just stay out.
Something tells me that if this was happening in your country and your family and fitness were dying you'd be all for the US intervening...
This is perhaps an example of how the UN has corrupted the world and made the world "safe for international fascist/corporate operations". The US, acting as the delegated policeman/jackbooted thug for the UN( or perhaps NATO, whichever organization will give the order) can go out and do whatever it is asked to do by these supra-national "authorities" who have no electoral legitimacy as "government" representing us.
Under the US Constitution, the President needs a declaration of war from Congress, hopefully based on some actual threat to our national sovereignty and/or Constitutional form of government. For decades now, since the creation of NATO and the UN, we have been ignoring our Constitution and acting under the pretense of authority from these organizations.
It's time for the US to end participation in these fascist organizations.
I stumbled upon an interview of Assad from late 2012. It is pretty interesting to say the least, kept me from sleeping for another half hour. I absolutely don't agree on some of his reasoning but there are some spot on ideas of him. Regardless it's a good video to at least grasp some of the points of his side of the story, up to the date of the interview of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdH4JKjVRyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdH4JKjVRyA
MVP
Well-Known Member
You know that USA did nothing when USSR attacked and occupied my country for more then 50 years so why I would be hoping for anything like that? Maybe because we do not have oil or where to small and insignificant?
See, I think USA/UN/NATO had all rights to punish Iraq after they invaded Kuwait since it was aggression against other country. Since it is civil war in Syria - stay out, let them figure things out within their borders.
The US and the West are in a bad position here from a humanitarian standpoint.
If they stand back and let a bunch of people get killed/mutilated with chemical weapons, people are going to whine that they didn't intervene to save innocents...much like in Rwanda. If they intervene, people are going to whine that they are butting into the internal affairs of another country. Unfortunately there's no easy solution (and that the whole situation tends to be more complex than the humanitarian aspect).
If they stand back and let a bunch of people get killed/mutilated with chemical weapons, people are going to whine that they didn't intervene to save innocents...much like in Rwanda. If they intervene, people are going to whine that they are butting into the internal affairs of another country. Unfortunately there's no easy solution (and that the whole situation tends to be more complex than the humanitarian aspect).
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
How do we even know if chemical gas was used? And who used it?
Anyone familiar with WWII and Germany's invasion of Poland knows how easy it is to deceive others into war.
In Syria, you are either supporting a jerk dictator who may or may not have used chemicals. Or an Al-Queda backed rebellion who may or may not have set up a horrible scene to drum up support for their civil war.
For us, you're deciding to support the best of 2 evils. I say, screw this and don't support anyone. Let the 2 duke it out.
Anyone familiar with WWII and Germany's invasion of Poland knows how easy it is to deceive others into war.
In Syria, you are either supporting a jerk dictator who may or may not have used chemicals. Or an Al-Queda backed rebellion who may or may not have set up a horrible scene to drum up support for their civil war.
For us, you're deciding to support the best of 2 evils. I say, screw this and don't support anyone. Let the 2 duke it out.
They should go for it and let us know how it goes.
I'm sure Israel and France will back them up.