Should we intervene in Syria?
No. Though humanitarian help is a different story.
I do believe there should be a stricter control on weapon supplies to Syria.
It depends on the goals of the US. In pure moralistic sense I say let them kill each other, but the events that are happening may have much more broad implications to them and if what the videos I'm posting are true, then I certainly think that the US should act as a failure to act could set off a chain of events that would lead to the biggest economic depression the US and perhaps the world has ever seen OR a Nuclear 3rd World War...This being the case. The moral thing might be to attack and interfere... and to some degree, more right thing to do in the eyes of many of us should be to attack.
The first is someone that is fairly eccentric so I don't completely trust his opinion, but it does seem to be supported by other videos I've seen. The second is Howard Bloom who is eccentric, but has a good view on things usually.
I have no clue what we should do about Syria......
What's the point of having international laws if nobody is going to enforce them?
We don't have true international laws. We have treaties and constitutions. You can disagree with them anytime you like.
1. No. the U.S. is spending millions on wars we never needed to be a part of. That means WE have to take it in the ass form taxes
2. I'm really not sure how good thread like this are for comic vine......
Here is some important and relevant news:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html
Oh, good, so Obama hasn't totally forgotten that this is supposed to be a democracy.
Does America need to be at war all the time? Why don't they send their kids to the frontline and then maybe they could ask. Let us please have peace for at least a couple of years!
If the U.S. government is telling the truth about the Syrian government gassing their own citizens, then we probably should.
The fact is we might not have the capability to do so effectively due to the massive over-stretching of our military in one unnecessary war (Iraq) and another simultaneous war that has been run in a half-assed manner (Afganistan). The cost of engaging Syria might be more than can be mustered or paid by the U.S. military, people and economy. This is the price of folly.
@powerherc: I think if it is all true and stuff, then the UN should handle it not America.
@powerherc: I think if it is all true and stuff, then the UN should handle it not America.
Actually there are reports that both sides use chemical weapons. There are also terrible stories about the actions of the rebels (cannibalism, executions based on radical Islamic law, etc.). The real Syrians are leaving the country and going south to other nations such as Jordan.
Honestly, the UN can't do $h!t when it comes to such conflicts. They always appear after though.
@silkyballfro94: the UN are a peace keeping force, they are not aloud to handle things
If the U.S. government is telling the truth about the Syrian government gassing their own citizens, then we probably should.
The fact is we might not have the capability to do so effectively due to the massive over-stretching of our military in one unnecessary war (Iraq) and another simultaneous war that has been run in a half-assed manner (Afganistan). The cost of engaging Syria might be more than can be mustered or paid by the U.S. military, people and economy. This is the price of folly.
As Howard Bloom points out... the gas attack did happen. However, we don't know who is responsible for the attack and the US has not shown who has done it, but has declared that the Syrian government did it.
@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.
@powerherc: I think if it is all true and stuff, then the UN should handle it not America.
Sounds good but when it comes to military intervention every time the U.N. intervenes it's, for all practical purposes, really the U.S. military that does the job. Besides, Russia is using it's veto to keep the U.N. from getting involved anyway.
If the U.S. government is telling the truth about the Syrian government gassing their own citizens, then we probably should.
The fact is we might not have the capability to do so effectively due to the massive over-stretching of our military in one unnecessary war (Iraq) and another simultaneous war that has been run in a half-assed manner (Afganistan). The cost of engaging Syria might be more than can be mustered or paid by the U.S. military, people and economy. This is the price of folly.
As Howard Bloom points out... the gas attack did happen. However, we don't know who is responsible for the attack and the US has not shown who has done it, but has declared that the Syrian government did it.
Exactly. The U.S. has said who is responsible but has not proven it. Given it's track record, I don't think anyone should automatically trust the U.S. government.
@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.
Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?
@durakken: I don't know jeez, just throwing out some suggestions brah
@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.
Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?
Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?
@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.
Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?
Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?
They have the Arab League. NATO has nothing to do with the Arab world. It should not have anything to do with them.
@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.
Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?
Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?
They have the Arab League. NATO has nothing to do with the Arab world. It should not have anything to do with them.
that really doesn't make it right
@jonny_anonymous: Oh yeah, in that case no one or NATO forces.
Why would the North Atlantic Trade Organization do anything to an Asian State that only touches the Mediterranean Ocean?
Because it's not cool to watch over a thousand pepole choke to death on tv while sitting around eating dinner?
They have the Arab League. NATO has nothing to do with the Arab world. It should not have anything to do with them.
that really doesn't make it right
oops NATO is Treaty not Trade. That makes more sense...
They're gassing innocent kids. It's no different to those affected than if it was happening here. To be against it just shows ignorance towards what's really going on down there, or sadism.
Why don't we stop every tyrant inside of Africa doing the same on a daily basis?
You cannot. And SHOULD NOT police the world.
@supreme_chancellor: We can, and we should, accept some policing duties as necessary to protect our interests and the interests of our allies.
@kratesis: I don't think you can. Conflicts of interest will always arise. Policing the world aka military presence whenever something goes wrong won't ever turn out well.
@supreme_chancellor: Of course we can, and of course we do. Conflicts of interests are part of the game and they always have been.
The most dominate navy in the history of the world keeps the majority of our trade safe and provides a security umbrella for the rest of the world to operate in. The occasional intervention when it is our interests is the only real choice. To withdraw into the old policy of isolationism would be short sighted and foolish.
@kratesis: Ah that's true kinda.
The British Empire thrived in isolationism...with the best Navy the world had ever known :P
@supreme_chancellor: The British Empire was never isolationist, not even for one single day.
@kratesis: Ehh...yes it was - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation. Well it was only about the EU though.
@supreme_chancellor: That is NOT isolationism. It was only a policy of avoiding entanglement in European alliances. The eurocentrism of the time lead to its label, but it was hardly an isolationist policy.
@kratesis: They got involved in virtually nothing within the EU. It is, and that's how it's taught in UK schools...the time of isolation. People want to go back to that now, and have a referendum to leave the EU properly. You can't dispute history lol Or maybe all of the qualified historians are wrong.
@supreme_chancellor: And the EU is not the world lol. Avoiding alliances with Europe while entangling themselves in Canada, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Australia, India, ect ect ect.. that isn't isolationist, just avoidance of MILITARY entanglements in ONE volatile region.
@kratesis: I cannot deny that. It's true true. Britain isolated themselves at home but stole everything abroad! I wonder if that kinda of ideology would work now or lead to a downfall..hmm.
@supreme_chancellor: It would probably work pretty well. Nothing has changed. There are still a small number of countries with advanced technology and there are still weaker countries with large amounts of natural resources.
@kratesis: Probably. Trade would probably lessen, but third world countries would probably be used greatly to western benefit I imagine.
@supreme_chancellor: Well perhaps. If say, the US seized Saudi Arabia's oil the Saudi's wouldn't be trading it, but we would. Only the countries that had the right resources would be disturbed. Oil would be a big one.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment