Posted by judasnixon (7181 posts) 1 year, 3 months ago

Poll: Should we intervene in Syria? (134 votes)

Yes 19%
No 80%
#151 Edited by consolemaster001 (6086 posts) - - Show Bio

@lone_rider said:

Obama is an even bigger warmonger than Bush; Syria is a sticky situation, why? let me explain!

1. President Assad is winning this crazy civil war, and he has support from the Russians, Iranians and a few trigger happy mofos from Lebanon.

2. Benefactors/Supporters on the rebel's side include US, Britian, France, Saudi Arabia & others, they support the rebels (with weapons, anti-air, blah, blah etc.)

3. The Rebels in this civil war, are not really rebels, more like Mercenary-Jihadists from various countries (which including Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Chechnya, and other Islamist-worshipping sh*tholes!)

4.This War is over two years old, started around the same time we went into Libya. Bush planned this war back in 2003, or maybe 2004..... Regime Change is a B*tch!!!

5. And uhmm... Syria is a sh*thole, but seriously Assad would be stupid to use Chemical Weapons on his own people, the only ones who would benefit from this... are the benefactors.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

#153 Edited by Lunacyde (19474 posts) - - Show Bio

@dngn4774 said:

Could you imagine how f'ed up our civil war would have been if a superpower came in to tell us which side was right? Granted using sarin gas to win a war is a bullsh!t tactic that should not be allowed, but civil wars are supposed to be determined by the people, not a foreign military.

Exactly, suppose Britain came in and fought with the Confederacy. Would that have led to less deaths?

#154 Edited by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio
@lunacyde said:

You're reducing a complex issue to a state where it is so simple that it's ridiculous and cannot even begin to cover the reality of the situation.

NO, I do not believe that money > Lives. I merely choose to look at the larger picture. Intervention and being sucked into another multi-trillion dollar quagmire that is going to be marginally successful if we can actually call it successful at all, will have it's consequences both in our country and internationally.

We can, and have to, shrink the debt if our country is to survive. Yes, that means we need to cut subsidies to petroleum giants and big agri-business. Yes, it means we have to reform the public safety net. Yes, it means some people are going to need to pay a little more in taxes. It's not impossible, and it doesn't need to be eliminated completely, that's just ludicrous, however it can be brought down to a manageable level if our legislators and leaders got serious about it.

Now as I said earlier your vision seems to be pretty short-sighted. If the U.S. falls into depression it is going to drag the world-economy with it. We are too interconnected at this point for it not to cause world-wide depression. In even our most wealthy and industrious countries there is poverty, starvation, and death. Millions of children and seniors are on the brink of starvation in our own country. Imagine what happens in a worldwide economic collapse. The number of fatalities in the Syrian conflict will look like a raindrop in an ocean. There will be widespread violence, famine, illness, and all because we didn't think before jumping in to a conflict we may well end up leaving worse of than before we messed with it.

Well, you don't think that Money > Lives, yet you're saying it's bad because it will cost a lot... meh.

Do you really think people want to pay more? It will NEVER happen. Just look at the rich in USA who don't even want to give 1/100 of their fortune in taxes. You can't rationally think that the debt will be paid. It's growing 2.02 billions per day.

Are you really willing to pay more? Most of the medium and poor class have issues with budget at the end of the month. ''Millions of children and seniors are on the brink of starvation in our own country'' i agree, but will it change if we don't go to war? Nah. there's too much republicans.

So basically, you're saying Money > Lives, innocent people are getting killed in Syria and the those people of the USA who can't pay more taxes will go on the streets? The debt is really worth it in your opinion? Well...

#155 Posted by Edamame (28375 posts) - - Show Bio

@cheesesticks: The debt could be eliminated by starting off fresh with a new currency.

#156 Posted by consolemaster001 (6086 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@cheesesticks: The debt could be eliminated by starting off fresh with a new currency.

We'll put your face on the $50 and mine on the $100

#157 Edited by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@cheesesticks: The debt could be eliminated by starting off fresh with a new currency.

Yes but are they going to do it? That's the question.

#159 Edited by Lunacyde (19474 posts) - - Show Bio

@cheesesticks said:
@lunacyde said:

You're reducing a complex issue to a state where it is so simple that it's ridiculous and cannot even begin to cover the reality of the situation.

NO, I do not believe that money > Lives. I merely choose to look at the larger picture. Intervention and being sucked into another multi-trillion dollar quagmire that is going to be marginally successful if we can actually call it successful at all, will have it's consequences both in our country and internationally.

We can, and have to, shrink the debt if our country is to survive. Yes, that means we need to cut subsidies to petroleum giants and big agri-business. Yes, it means we have to reform the public safety net. Yes, it means some people are going to need to pay a little more in taxes. It's not impossible, and it doesn't need to be eliminated completely, that's just ludicrous, however it can be brought down to a manageable level if our legislators and leaders got serious about it.

Now as I said earlier your vision seems to be pretty short-sighted. If the U.S. falls into depression it is going to drag the world-economy with it. We are too interconnected at this point for it not to cause world-wide depression. In even our most wealthy and industrious countries there is poverty, starvation, and death. Millions of children and seniors are on the brink of starvation in our own country. Imagine what happens in a worldwide economic collapse. The number of fatalities in the Syrian conflict will look like a raindrop in an ocean. There will be widespread violence, famine, illness, and all because we didn't think before jumping in to a conflict we may well end up leaving worse of than before we messed with it.

Well, you don't think that Money > Lives, yet you're saying it's bad because it will cost a lot... meh.

Do you really think people want to pay more? It will NEVER happen. Just look at the rich in USA who don't even want to give 1/100 of their fortune in taxes. You can't rationally think that the debt will be paid. It's growing 2.02 billions per day.

Are you really willing to pay more? Most of the medium and poor class have issues with budget at the end of the month. ''Millions of children and seniors are on the brink of starvation in our own country'' i agree, but will it change if we don't go to war? Nah. there's too much republicans.

So basically, you're saying Money > Lives, innocent people are getting killed in Syria and the those people of the USA who can't pay more taxes will go on the streets? The debt is really worth it in your opinion? Well...

No, I am saying it's bad because it could lead to astronomically more deaths.

Yes, I am willing to pay more if I know everyone else will. Will I have to go without a few luxuries like comic books, internet, and satellite dish? Maybe, but if it means the preservation of a future for my children you damn well know I'd do it.

Going to war (again) certainly isn't going to help. And you seem fixated on this idea that somehow we will magically go in, save lives, and get out. This is the real world. Look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan, look at the history of our interventionism in the Middle East. We provided Saddam weapons, he ended up using on his own people. You really think they aren't better off without us clumsily butting in? Ask the Iraqis if they would recommend us invading their nation. Life is complex and you can't just charge in and set things right, it's not that easy.

For all we know we could help the rebels win and then be left with them subjugating the people under Islamic rule and using the weapons we provided them to oppress their own people. It wouldn't be the first time.

#160 Posted by Edamame (28375 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@cheesesticks: The debt could be eliminated by starting off fresh with a new currency.

We'll put your face on the $50 and mine on the $100

lol I'm ugly. I wouldn't want my face on anything! :)

#161 Posted by Edamame (28375 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@cheesesticks: The debt could be eliminated by starting off fresh with a new currency.

Yes but are they going to do it? That's the question.

Well, if people are willing to bring about progress and positive change, yes. They should have their priorities set.

#162 Edited by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

No, I am saying it's bad because it could lead to astronomically more deaths.

Yes, I am willing to pay more if I know everyone else will. Will I have to go without a few luxuries like comic books, internet, and satellite dish? Maybe, but if it means the preservation of a future for my children you damn well know I'd do it.

Going to war (again) certainly isn't going to help. And you seem fixated on this idea that somehow we will magically go in, save lives, and get out. This is the real world. Look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan, look at the history of our interventionism in the Middle East. We provided Saddam weapons, he ended up using on his own people. You really think they aren't better off without us clumsily butting in? Ask the Iraqis if they would recommend us invading their nation. Life is complex and you can't just charge in and set things right, it's not that easy.

More death? Yes, some soldiers will die on the way. As a soldier in the canadian army(while at University), i know that i could die anyday. It's part of the job. USA, Canada, England and France are willing to go in Syria. China said to the president of Syria to calm down and that they're not going to join them. Russia are the only one still on Syria side. Do you really think they're going to join them and put every G8 country against them? I don't think so.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant since it's never going to happen(see above).

Irak and Afghanistan isn't the same thing. We all know Bush was going there for the petrol. Syria has nothing to offer. I was in Afghanistan for 1 year and we knew it was for the petrol. If your people were getting massacre by chemical weapon, i'm sure you would be happy to see soldier killing them.

#163 Edited by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:
@cheesesticks said:

@edamame said:

@cheesesticks: The debt could be eliminated by starting off fresh with a new currency.

Yes but are they going to do it? That's the question.

Well, if people are willing to bring about progress and positive change, yes. They should have their priorities set.

Sadly, i don't think it will ever happen. They're too lazy to do it.

#165 Posted by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@cheesesticks: Then I'll have to whip them or slam their heads into the walls until they wake up and get moving. It's as simple as that. lol I mean, really. People these days are just so f****ng passive, and they don't care about anything.

"I ... don't know what to do! Maybe if I watch TV or drink alcohol or take drugs, then all of these problems will go away." lol Pathetic.

My thought exactly.

#166 Posted by Lunacyde (19474 posts) - - Show Bio

Apparently you aren't reading (or comprehending) what I am writing.

Also, Britain and Canada both said they are NOT willing to go into Syria.

Iraq is a closer comparison to Syria than just about any country in the world. They are both countries that were relatively secular in the Middle East, have strong sectarian divisions, they are geographically very close, and both are/were essentially lead by dictators. Syria has nothing to offer? I think you must be confused. Afghanistan has significantly less oil production than Syria does, and less deposits. I don't know why Canada was in Afghanistan, but we were there to cripple Al-Qaeda and get Bin Laden.

We still don't even know if the chemical attack was carried out by Assad's forces. We have no clue that the rebels are any more trustworthy. You can't just assume because they are rebels that they have the people's interests at heart. We've made things worse by intervening before, multiple times. By joining this war we very well could increase the size, impact and duration of the conflict and when we are done we will leave them in a state where the citizens may not realistically be any safer...ex. Iraq.

#167 Posted by Squalleon (4872 posts) - - Show Bio

NO.
This is Irak all over again, America is just trying again to interfere in the middle east. I know that not fighting "injustice" sounds hard but this is clearly an attack to bring the escalation and to help certain agendas. There is a reason no other nation supports the attack. As someone who is not from America and the news here are different and after hearing what you guys know I will have to answer negatively in this question. Since the Goverment doesn't want outside "help", America should just wait for the goverment to ask for "help".

#168 Edited by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

Apparently you aren't reading (or comprehending) what I am writing.

Also, Britain and Canada both said they are NOT willing to go into Syria.

Iraq is a closer comparison to Syria than just about any country in the world. They are both countries that were relatively secular in the Middle East, have strong sectarian divisions, they are geographically very close, and both are/were essentially lead by dictators. Syria has nothing to offer? I think you must be confused. Afghanistan has significantly less oil production than Syria does, and less deposits. I don't know why Canada was in Afghanistan, but we were there to cripple Al-Qaeda and get Bin Laden.

We still don't even know if the chemical attack was carried out by Assad's forces. We have no clue that the rebels are any more trustworthy. You can't just assume because they are rebels that they have the people's interests at heart. We've made things worse by intervening before, multiple times. By joining this war we very well could increase the size, impact and duration of the conflict and when we are done we will leave them in a state where the citizens may not realistically be any safer...ex. Iraq.

We all know that if USA and France go to Syria, Canada and England will join.

#169 Edited by Squalleon (4872 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

Irak and Afghanistan isn't the same thing. We all know Bush was going there for the petrol. Syria has nothing to offer. I was in Afghanistan for 1 year and we knew it was for the petrol. If your people were getting massacre by chemical weapon, i'm sure you would be happy to see soldier killing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria
L
ook i don't want to intervine in your argument but i want you to know that Syria has many things to offer!

#170 Edited by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria

Look i don't want to intervine in your argument but i want you to know that Syria has many things to offer!

You know everything is destroyed right? I don't think the USA will be willing to put a lot of money into Syria to rebuild everything and then exploit their ressources. That's a lot of money and Obama probably won't have the green light to do it.

#171 Posted by Squalleon (4872 posts) - - Show Bio
#172 Posted by Nefarious (22898 posts) - - Show Bio

No. The US is not the police of the world.

#173 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34992 posts) - - Show Bio

Think I'm gonna commit genocide tomorrow, apparently that's an ok thing to do these days

#174 Posted by CheeseSticks (2588 posts) - - Show Bio
#175 Edited by dngn4774 (3504 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous said:

Think I'm gonna commit genocide tomorrow, apparently that's an ok thing to do these days

Genocide is not okay but neither is making one country to police it, especially when most of that country doesn't want to. Incidents like these are why the UN should assemble it's own military (which should be larger than our own, and our military should shrink). It seems as if every generation of Americans will be at war for the foreseeable future. How many more waves of soldiers have to be destroyed (killed, maimed, psychological scarred) before we realize that we can't force the entire world to accept our beliefs?

#176 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34992 posts) - - Show Bio

@dngn4774 said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

Think I'm gonna commit genocide tomorrow, apparently that's an ok thing to do these days

Genocide is not okay but neither is making one country to police it, especially when most of that country doesn't want to. Incidents like these are why the UN should assemble it's own military (which should be larger than our own, and our military should shrink). It seems as if every generation of Americans will be at war for the foreseeable future. How many more waves of soldiers have to be destroyed (killed, maimed, psychological scarred) before we realize that we can't force the entire world to accept our beliefs?

And it wont be just one country nor has it ever been. Not using weapons of mass-destruction on your own pepole shouldn't be a belief it should be a fundamental truth.

#177 Edited by Illuminatus (9489 posts) - - Show Bio

ITT: A bunch of bleeding-hearts and non-Americans on their hands and knees for US assistance.

Get off your lazy asses and go help out yourself. We were founded as a non-interventionist country, we carried ourselves as such for many decades, and the last 100 years of policing the world and attempting to impose our cultural expectations have been an aberration, and have created hundreds of millions of enemies for this nation. It is time for us to focus internally and fix our own problems. If you aggrandizing peoples of the British Commonwealth and Europe want to pat yourselves on the back for thinking you know what is morally right in this conflict, you're welcome to. You're also welcome to enforce your precious international law by yourselves and give away all of your treasure to humanitarian efforts. The British and Canadians here need to lay off the pipe in particular, as it has already been decided that you will not have an active role in intervention. Your opinions have been rendered moot by your governments, and trying to sway the minds of Americans in favor of an interventionist approach is morally repugnant. Get lost. To Canadians such as Deranged Midget, I'm glad you see reason, and your insight into the Balkan conflicts is certainly appreciated.

600,000 people died in the American Civil War which carried on for almost five years, and yet no great powers intervened. Syria's conflict pales in comparison, and their inability to solve the problem themselves only points to a lack of cultural fortitude. Chemical weapons are an abomination, sure, but it took the deaths of millions for the larger powers in the world to come to this conclusion. 81,000,000 million people died in WWI and WWII, and the body count on the Eastern Front makes the Syrian conflict look a bar fight. The Middle East/Central Asia/North Africa has come to that defining moment where they will have to decide, for themselves, whether they want to join the rest of the world in ensuring moderate civility, or falling into abject irrelevance as they make the choice to not respect human dignity. Nobody intervened in the West and said "We are here to help! For the children! For democracy!". We figured it out. It's time they do the same.

#178 Posted by Edamame (28375 posts) - - Show Bio

:)

#179 Posted by Bogey (970 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the United States government has done enough by funding Al Qaeda to fight against the Syrian forces.

#180 Edited by WillPayton (9822 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

How is this not clear? You said that forced intervention causes more problems than it solves. Period. That means it always does this. And I said, "prove it". Prove it doesnt mean give one example, it means prove it for all cases.

How is providing an example, albeit a specific one or by extension the entire situation with Afghanistan or Iraq dating back in the early nineties and recently in the earliest parts of 2003 until now, not proof enough. I already stated that it doesn't register in regards to all cases. I said most. Any example, especially one where the interfering countries were forced to acknowledge their mistakes (bombing of Serbia) and apologize as they hadn't realized they caused more harm than foul is substantial proof that intervention isn't always the ideal option. At least, I'd think so.

Now, I would like to apologize if I came off a little too strongly. It was not my intention, this subject is just a tad bit personal to me as my family and friends back home were and still are largely affected by what happened. Thank you providing an example on your end, I appreciate it. I just wanted to state my own piece as I originally said a few pages back.

Ok fair enough. I thought you were claiming that intervention in all cases was a net negative. And, even though I dont like intervening in other peoples wars, sometimes it's just necessary and the right thing.

It was necessary in WWI and WWII. It was necessary after WWII to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Germany and much of Europe if we (the US) werent there. It was necessary in Korea to keep the Communists from taking over all of that country. It was necessary in Kuwait. And, it's been necessary in many other places including the example I gave of Libya. It all just depends on the context... which is a complicated thing, but you cant just say that it's always good or always bad. In this case, we have a government that's so emboldened that even using chemical weapons to kill 1,000 people is now a plausible action without fear of repercussion. They can drop napalm on a school full of children and no one here seems to care. The war so far has killed 100,000 people... and still people dont care.

People say, why would Assad use these weapons when he knows what will happen? The answer is obvious from looking just at this thread... that nothing will happen, or at least that's what he believes. He has Russia and China running interference for him, and people like most here saying that we should do nothing. He can literally kill half of his country with Sarin gas and people will still be saying "it's their problem, let them deal with it". It's quite similar to Germany killing millions of Jews in WWII and the world standing by and watching and not giving a shit. Hey, it's their problem, right?

Actually, no, not just their problem. It's the worlds problem. As soon as you get a dictator in some country using these weapons, it threatens the entire region and encourages others worldwide to use them. If no one does anything, it means that all the conventions and protocols that countries go by are meaningless. And we need these protocols and norms, because we already saw in WWI what happens when those waging wars feel that using chemical weapons is ok. It was horrible. And today we have biological and nuclear weapons. Anyone here who thinks that use of these weapons in war is excusable or should go unpunished by the world community really needs to study what happened in WWI and why these weapons were outlawed.

#181 Edited by WillPayton (9822 posts) - - Show Bio

http://news.yahoo.com/firm-response-needed-syria-chemical-attack-nato-122636842.html

NATO chief convinced Syrian government behind chemical attack

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO's secretary-general said on Monday he had seen evidence convincing him Syrian authorities were behind a deadly chemical weapons attack and said it would send a "dangerous signal to dictators" if the world did not respond firmly.

However, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said it was up to individual NATO countries to decide how they would respond to the attack and he did not envisage any NATO role beyond existing plans to defend NATO member Turkey, which borders Syria.

"I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details, I can tell you that personally I am convinced, not only that a chemical attack has taken place ..., but I am also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible," Rasmussen told a news conference.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said he will seek congressional authorization for punitive action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after what Washington said was a sarin gas attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 people.

Rasmussen said there was "agreement that we need a firm international response in order to avoid that chemical attacks take place in the future. It would send, I would say, a dangerous signal to dictators all over the world if we stand idly by and don't react."

But Rasmussen said he saw no further role for NATO in the Syria crisis, beyond defending Turkey.

"If a response to what has happened in Syria were to be a military operation, I'd envisage a very short, measured, targeted operation, and you don't need the NATO command and control system to conduct such a short, measured, tailored, military operation," he said.

#182 Edited by thespideyguy (2650 posts) - - Show Bio

US - No

UN - Right on

#183 Posted by Impala (264 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Yes it was necessary in WWII because U.S feared that Soviet Russia would take over Europe and would literally rape U.S. The power that Russia would have controlling Europe would be incredible. They saved their own hides nothing to do with how much U.S cared for the people.

#184 Edited by WillPayton (9822 posts) - - Show Bio

@impala said:

@willpayton: Yes it was necessary in WWII because U.S feared that Soviet Russia would take over Europe and would literally rape U.S. The power that Russia would have controlling Europe would be incredible. They saved their own hides nothing to do with how much U.S cared for the people.

We didnt go into WWII to fight the Soviets, we went in to fight the Germans and Japanese. You should learn more about historical events before you start making claims about the motivations of people in those times.

#185 Posted by Impala (264 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I doesn't matter against who u went into war, u still state "It was necessary after WWII to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Germany and much of Europe if we (the US) werent there". So u still intervened and stopped Russia becoming even a greater world power and a threat to U.S.

#186 Posted by WillPayton (9822 posts) - - Show Bio

@impala said:

@willpayton: I doesn't matter against who u went into war, u still state "It was necessary after WWII to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Germany and much of Europe if we (the US) werent there". So u still intervened and stopped Russia becoming even a greater world power and a threat to U.S.

That was after WWII, not "in WWII" as you claimed.

Also, we intervened in Europe (and elsewhere) against the Soviets not just because it would be a threat to the U.S., but because it would be a threat to the safety and freedom of everyone on the planet.

Acting against people like Assad who use weapons of mass destruction that have been banned since the 1920's is the same thing. He and such weapons are an existential threat to not just the people in Syria, but also countries like Israel, not to mention many others in the Middle East. And if international norms like the prohibition against WMDs disappear, then everyone including people in the U.S. are in danger.

Now, if you think that innocent people in Syria getting murdered by nerve gas by the thousands is not your concern, it's not your problem, that's up to you. To other people however, compassion, a sense of moral responsibility, and a historical perspective matter. Feel free to go about your daily business without caring about what happens to those on the other side of the planet.

#187 Posted by Lunacyde (19474 posts) - - Show Bio
#188 Edited by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

This subject has been weighing on my mind since early Wednesday morning. Since then I haven't been able to shake the feeling that we've been sucked into a time warp and are as a nation being placed back in two thousand and three. It feels the same. It sounds the same and the powers that be are saying the same things. I paraphrase John Kerry. The president reserves the right to carry out whatever decision he deems necessary, no matter how the congress ultimately votes.

It's not sad. It's not quite depressing. It is just disillusioning.

It makes one feel foolish for having once read The Audacity of Hope with such pride and...hope. When I read the president's book I felt as though there was a morsel of hope for this country and with every slip-up he's dashing my fantasies. It may sound dramatic but, is it so off base? We still have a prison camp. We still have people in suicidal debt due to medical bills and we're still dreaming up wars that we have no place in.

I'm severely inebriated. Don't listen to me. Don't even read what I write.

#189 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

I really don't see why we have to fight in Syria. We didn't do anything when Sadamm was gassing kurds (HELL WE FREAKEN COVERED FOR HIM).

I am not convinced for a second that Obama is in this to HELP people because simply put the US does not give a damn about the well being of people around the world and we only seek to further our own political/economic goals (I don't blame the US this has been the policy of every country since the beginning of time).

I am also especially not convinced that Assad perpetrated the attacks. Think about it, why would Assad (who is clearly winning the "Civil War" risk international involvement). It seems to me the rebels (who aren't unified and far more likely to use gas) have EVERYTHING to gain from getting the US involved.

It would not be the first time the US has falsified evidence to get the US public into a war (Gulf of Tonkin). Please don't be so blind people.

#190 Edited by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

I really don't see why we have to fight in Syria. We didn't do anything when Sadamm was gassing kurds (HELL WE FREAKEN COVERED FOR HIM).

I am not convinced for a second that Obama is in this to HELP people because simply put the US does not give a damn about the well being of people around the world and we only seek to further our own political/economic goals (I don't blame the US this has been the policy of every country since the beginning of time).

I am also especially not convinced that Assad perpetrated the attacks. Think about it, why would Assad (who is clearly winning the "Civil War" risk international involvement). It seems to me the rebels (who aren't unified and far more likely to use gas) have EVERYTHING to gain from getting the US involved.

It would not be the first time the US has falsified evidence to get the US public into a war (Gulf of Tonkin). Please don't be so blind people.

And today's bonus points go to you my morosely correct friend.

#191 Edited by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio
@willpayton said:

@impala said:

@willpayton: I doesn't matter against who u went into war, u still state "It was necessary after WWII to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Germany and much of Europe if we (the US) werent there". So u still intervened and stopped Russia becoming even a greater world power and a threat to U.S.

That was after WWII, not "in WWII" as you claimed.

Also, we intervened in Europe (and elsewhere) against the Soviets not just because it would be a threat to the U.S., but because it would be a threat to the safety and freedom of everyone on the planet.

Acting against people like Assad who use weapons of mass destruction that have been banned since the 1920's is the same thing. He and such weapons are an existential threat to not just the people in Syria, but also countries like Israel, not to mention many others in the Middle East. And if international norms like the prohibition against WMDs disappear, then everyone including people in the U.S. are in danger.

Now, if you think that innocent people in Syria getting murdered by nerve gas by the thousands is not your concern, it's not your problem, that's up to you. To other people however, compassion, a sense of moral responsibility, and a historical perspective matter. Feel free to go about your daily business without caring about what happens to those on the other side of the planet.

We intervened in Europe only because it was a threat to us. The US does not care about the safety and freedom of everyone else. We install dictators if the people challenge us (ex Iran), again I am a US citizen love the United States but this is fact.

Again we don't care if he uses them but he is an ally of Russia/Iran (noted enemies of the US) and we would gladly destabilize the region if it meant a blow to our enemies. When we were supporting Iraq against Iran and they massacred Kurds (100k) we did nothing. So please don't think we are in it to help people when we clearly aren't.

I do think it is a problem but I do not believe that Assad attacked his own civilians (I think he would do it if there was a reason) because Assad knows that such acts would draw international condemnation and possibly attack. The rebels are losing this war and they know it... What better way to turn the tide then to draw the US in? The Rebels (a group of 100s of different factions some terrorist other foreign) are not unified and 1 of their MANY factions could easily got their hands on chemical weapons and then used them.

We shouldn't help Assad but we shouldn't help the rebels either. The best thing we can do right now is try to bring about negotiation, and help the people of Syria (Not the rebels and not the government). This Syrian "civil" war is not a 50-50 split, many are simply caught in the crossfire and need humanitarian help. A islamist government in Syria is possibly the WORST outcome if we support the rebels and could lead to attacks on Israel, increased terrorist activity (possibly new terrorist attacks on the US), and an even angrier Russia and Iran.

#192 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn: It really is depressing what our government will do to further it's own goals without regard to lives and people.

#193 Posted by WillPayton (9822 posts) - - Show Bio

The US does not care about the safety and freedom of everyone else.

Yeah you keep saying this, but speak for yourself. Some of us here actually do care about others.

I do not believe that Assad attacked his own civilians

Believe what you want. I'll go by the evidence.

There's plenty of things that go on, and plenty of actions by people, that dont make sense. Saying "why would Assad do this" is irrelevant because actually there are reasons why. You just dont want to look at those reasons, and instead prefer to go by conspiracies and your own preconceived notions. There is either convincing evidence that he did it, or there's not. Personally I think it's a dumb move by him (or someone in his government), but it wouldnt be the first time a delusional dictator does something dumb. Saddam Hussein actively took actions to make people believe he had WMDs. Everything he did, including keeping weapons inspectors from looking at sites, gave that impression. So, why would he do it if he knew that it risked the US attacking? Well, whatever the reasons, he did it. That's a fact. So the "it doesnt make sense to me, therefore it didnt happen" argument is entirely unconvincing. Conspiracy theories are unconvincing. Only facts are convincing.

Here's some logic that doenst require bizarre conspiracies... it's pretty clear that Obama and his administration dont want to get involved in Syria. They simply dont. Even after the last chemical weapons attack from Assad, nothing. Even deciding to send small weapons and ammo took forever. So, why would they all of a sudden decide that they want to push for an attack? Why would they claim that there's solid evidence that the regime committed the attack, if there isnt? The answer is, obviously, they wouldnt. But, not only the US government, but also NATO has said that the evidence is convincing that it was government forces that did the attack. They have zero motivation to lie about it, and in fact much more motivation to try to make the evidence seem inconclusive to avoid attacking. If they were lying, there's no upside and only downside, if it happens that later evidence shows up that the rebels did it. So, it'd be stupid to try to falsify an argument for attacking, when we already know they dont want to get involved.

But, whatever, believe what you want to believe regardless of actual logic.

#194 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I am not saying I don't care about freedom around the world I am saying the US government doesn't and that is fact. I don't hate the US because every other country in existence has only cared about themselves.

Saddam clearly had WMDs (gas) and used them on his own people for decades. We didn't care about him gassing his own Kurdish citizens until he quit being a US ally against Iran. It is clearly documented that Saddam used gas. So you saying we as a nation care about other people's safety is idiotic and a childish idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Obama does want to get involved in Syria. He was a major supporter of the Arab Spring which has destabilized the middle east. All the evidence is not pointing to Assad using chemical weapons. Local residents in the area say they saw rebels storing large quantities of chemicals underground. It also would be extremely easy for Saudi agents to supply them with chemical gas. We shouldn't have sent supplies to the rebels in the first place. Look at Mali and Libya we sent Libyan rebels weapons and then they give them to terrorists who then invade Mali and France ends up having to clean up that mess.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600624/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

#195 Edited by Edamame (28375 posts) - - Show Bio
@willpayton said:

It's quite similar to Germany killing millions of Jews in WWII and the world standing by and watching and not giving a shit. Hey, it's their problem, right?

Well, the entire nation of Germany was not killing European Jews during World War II. Besides, most of the ordinary and regular people didn't even know that the Holocaust was happening. It's not like the Nazis were publicly announcing that they were killing European Jews.

#196 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

So much hyperbole and misinformation in this thread that I can barely stomach it.

1) Canada has stated it supports a military strike against Syrian government forces. No idea where everyone is coming off saying Canada has said differently. Our Prime Minister has said he is reluctantly agrees with a military strike and stands by its allies in their decision but get this, Canada has not been asked by ANY country to join in a military strike as our Foreign Policy is humanitarian relief focused, to the tune of $120 million dollars already put to the Syrian people. Our Prime Minister's Office put out the statement that we are onside, albeit symbolically.

More importantly, however, I am my own person and the leader of my country does not speak for me in ANYTHING -- and that includes what happens in the world I live in. Anything I feel should be done on a global scale will never, ever be a moot point and I take umbrage at the suggestion it is by anyone. That is a statement I do not need to, therefore I will not defend.

Also, the Balkan War was horrific and while I certainly understand a user's personal view due to loved ones affected by it, things are not so clear cut. I don't mean to infer they are wrong in any way -- how could that be possible as they are recounting actual events but it's important to bear in mind what led to the intervention of NATO forces in that conflict and circumstances which lead to the unfortunate and frankly, terrible consequences from it.

2) This is important. In fact, this is super important -- everyone on this thread seems to be discussing war. This is NOT a suggestion of war -- nor is it going to lead into a war involving the international community as the United States have stated -- repeatedly -- this is a minimal strike, strictly to be construed as a firing across the bow. There will be no bombs crashing into cities -- there will be no totalitarian strikes into all and any known government facilities, ESPECIALLY chemical warehouses as this obviously would be a horrendous idea. It will be a few, chosen sites where Syria has their weapons and bases set up and a reminder to them - regardless of them not signing the UN chemical ban in 1925 -- that chemical warfare will not be allowed in a mass scale. You want to call this hypocritical because of what happened to the Kurds back in 1988 when 8000 of their army were killed? Fine -- I won't debate that but I have two problems with that mentality. First -- because we failed to do something before, we are not allowed to do better? Yes, it's that simple. And second, this was a large scale attack into a civilian neighbourhood -- simply because the rebel forces managed to keep it in their control. The government has used chemical weapons on their own people. This is the not the first time they have -- they have done so several times in the past two years and even then, the international response was -- hey, we don't know for sure, this is none of our business -- this is for them to figure out. Guess what? That mentality gave this corrupt government the stones to use chemical warfare in a larger scale. This is the reality.

You know -- for all of everyone's rhetoric about bleeding hearts and liberals and taking care of your own -- that's fine. Like I stated earlier and will so again, these are opinions and so is mine. Mine was that this should be an international effort, not a US one. The problem with that is that the UN is toothless since both China and Russia carry vetoes and have indicated they will use them when this comes to vote. And here's a fun tidbit -- Syria is Russia's last outpost in the world containing its troops and furthermore, need the money made by selling Syria arms quite desperately. So, there will be a fraction of countries who are onside with this endeavour and what I want to see is a large number coming out in support of this. No tally has been taken as none have been asked. None. Canada has spoken up and declared its being onside with what the USA proposes (and our government is in recess until October by the way so this was done through our Foreign Ministry.) I am paying attention as well.

Also, if this matters to anyone -- President Obama has stated, quite clearly, the operation will in no way be in a large enough scale to determine the outcome of this civil war. In fact -- that he announced intentions of this strike and waiting for congress approval is allowing the Syrian government to move its vehicles and weapons to other areas (which by the way -- is populated neighbourhoods. How's that for a government that cares for its people?)

So, this is not about a war, this is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan. If you want links to all I have spoken about, I am more than happy to provide them but I suspect most aren't interested. My contribution to this thread is simply to correct what has been erroneously stated.

#197 Edited by Pyrogram (41269 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: May I ask. If one nation strikes another (even if its a "specific strike"") who are you to say that is not a war? If the UK shot missiles towards of French territory but killed nobody. That is still an act of war. You cannot go invading foreign airspace with military strikes and not call it war.

#198 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram:

Interesting you should say that. The semantics are there. If everyone was speaking of this in the the context you are, then I could understand and thus open a debate about international law and what constitutes an act of war. The United States is this situation considers itself not committing an act of war but rather upholding agreements it made with other countries in regards to the use of chemical weapons. The is no declaration of war between the two countries and the United States do not want to overtake the country nor usurp the ruling regime.

It makes for great debate though, ranging from International Law -- domestic Constitution infractions and humanitarian expectations etc.

#199 Edited by Lunacyde (19474 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

So much hyperbole and misinformation in this thread that I can barely stomach it.

1) Canada has stated it supports a military strike against Syrian government forces. No idea where everyone is coming off saying Canada has said differently. Our Prime Minister has said he is reluctantly agrees with a military strike and stands by its allies in their decision but get this, Canada has not been asked by ANY country to join in a military strike as our Foreign Policy is humanitarian relief focused, to the tune of $120 million dollars already put to the Syrian people. Our Prime Minister's Office put out the statement that we are onside, albeit symbolically.

More importantly, however, I am my own person and the leader of my country does not speak for me in ANYTHING -- and that includes what happens in the world I live in. Anything I feel should be done on a global scale will never, ever be a moot point and I take umbrage at the suggestion it is by anyone. That is a statement I do not need to, therefore I will not defend.

Also, the Balkan War was horrific and while I certainly understand a user's personal view due to loved ones affected by it, things are not so clear cut. I don't mean to infer they are wrong in any way -- how could that be possible as they are recounting actual events but it's important to bear in mind what led to the intervention of NATO forces in that conflict and circumstances which lead to the unfortunate and frankly, terrible consequences from it.

2) This is important. In fact, this is super important -- everyone on this thread seems to be discussing war. This is NOT a suggestion of war -- nor is it going to lead into a war involving the international community as the United States have stated -- repeatedly -- this is a minimal strike, strictly to be construed as a firing across the bow. There will be no bombs crashing into cities -- there will be no totalitarian strikes into all and any known government facilities, ESPECIALLY chemical warehouses as this obviously would be a horrendous idea. It will be a few, chosen sites where Syria has their weapons and bases set up and a reminder to them - regardless of them not signing the UN chemical ban in 1925 -- that chemical warfare will not be allowed in a mass scale. You want to call this hypocritical because of what happened to the Kurds back in 1998 when 8000 of their army were killed? Fine -- I won't debate that but I have two problems with that mentality. First -- because we failed to do something before, we are not allowed to do better? Yes, it's that simple. And second, this was a large scale attack into a civilian neighbourhood -- simply because the rebel forces managed to keep it in their control. The government has used chemical weapons on their own people. This is the not the first time they have -- they have done so several times in the past two years and even then, the international response was -- hey, we don't know for sure, this is none of our business -- this is for them to figure out. Guess what? That mentality gave this corrupt government the stones to use chemical warfare in a larger scale. This is the reality.

You know -- for all of everyone's rhetoric about bleeding hearts and liberals and taking care of your own -- that's fine. Like I stated earlier and will so again, these are opinions and so is mine. Mine was that this should be an international effort, not a US one. The problem with that is that the UN is toothless since both China and Russia carry vetoes and have indicated they will use them when this comes to vote. And here's a fun tidbit -- Syria is Russia's last outpost in the world containing its troops and furthermore, need the money made by selling Syria arms quite desperately. So, there will be a fraction of countries who are onside with this endeavour and what I want to see is a large number coming out in support of this. No tally has been taken as none have been asked. None. Canada has spoken up and declared its being onside with what the USA proposes (and our government is in recess until October by the way so this was done through our Foreign Ministry.) I am paying attention as well.

Also, if this matters to anyone -- President Obama has stated, quite clearly, the operation will in no way be in a large enough scale to determine the outcome of this civil war. In fact -- that he announced intentions of this strike and waiting for congress approval is allowing the Syrian government to move its vehicles and weapons to other areas (which by the way -- is populated neighbourhoods. How's that for a government that cares for its people?)

So, this is not about a war, this is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan. If you want links to all I have spoken about, I am more than happy to provide them but I suspect most aren't interested. My contribution to this thread is simply to correct what has been erroneously stated.

1.) Regardless of whether you have been asked or not, Canada has not indicated in any way they would assist militarily in an action against Assad's regime. Harper's own words, “At the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own to have a Canadian military mission.” You're not going in, you don't have any plans to do so. Saying that you support other NATO nations who do want to go in means diddily squat. You have nothing to lose in this. You've given a lot in humanitarian aid, that's great, that doesn't give you any say over what the U.S. or any other country in the world should do for that matter. Guess what, the United States has given over a billion dollars in humanitarian aid. You don't see me bragging about it, or using it to justify my own personal beliefs.

You may be your own person, but your opinions are that, merely opinions. What have you done that gives you a right to say what we should do? At the end of the day you're someone sitting in front of a computer screen telling us how important it is to send OUR family members into a foreign country to fight for something you yourself and your own country have already said they won't fight for. It's easy to sit in your comfortable chair and tell other people what they should do. Guess what? You don't get to have a say because I don't see you signing up to go fight, or even go over and provide supplies to refugees. Your military is doing nothing, you are doing nothing, and this means that yes, it is hypocritical to get on your soapbox and proclaim how others need to go in and do something. No you want to sit on your lazy butt and make decisions for other people, and send them into harms way because it doesn't involve you, and it doesn't call for you to sacrifice..

2.) Anyone who thinks going in and doing what you are suggesting is going to magically solve anything is being naïve. What if it doesn't work? What then? Do we start bombing runs? Do we put men on the ground? Do we keep feeding weapons to the rebels and actually prolonging and expanding the fight?

All in all I have always agreed that a multilateral strike, in the fashion you have suggested is something I would support. Not because I think it will make a difference in lives lost, or anything of the sort, but because we need to symbolically show that no we won't stand for the use of Chemical weapons. HOWEVER, anything that calls for advanced U.S. involvement over a long period of time, should absolutely be out of the question. Do I think dropping a few bombs on their stuff is going to change their tune? Honestly no, but like we've both said something needs to be done to address the chemical attack 9if it is proven that they perpetrated it)

#200 Edited by Pyrogram (41269 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: I personally never knew the West had so much power they can bomb another country and declare it not an act of war, talk about international corruption...or bullying.