Topic: USA and allies prepare an attack on Syria

[TheouAegis]

If we want to take out chemical weapons plants, it doesn't take a massive UN military strike. You send a couple scout planes in. If they get attacked, you send in your primary bombers with tactical fighters and give the fighters orders to take out any defense forces while the bombers take out the weapons plants. Anyone that gets caught in the attack is just collateral damage and the operation is done. You then deliver a televised message to Assad telling him to back the fuck down. Go in, do the job, get out. The world doesn't even need to know about it. Although the fact that this is all being publicized makes me think it's just UN/US grandstanding and shit ain't gonna get done. You don't tell someone, "We're going to bomb you to smithereens because you attacked your citizens." You can tell them, "If you don't stop attacking your citizens, we will bomb you to smithereens," but you don't outright tell them what you're going to do. That's just plain retarded.

[Lelygax]

Hate to sound cold but...

...the USA has its own share of problems.  It's time the USA stops trying to be the "Superman" country of the world.  Maybe 50 years ago that would've been true.  Now?  We've been knocked down quite a few times and are just not financially able to support another 'protect my friends' war.

If that means other nations have to burn themselves as a result... so be it.

Yeah, look at Star Trek, they doesnt involve themselves with foreigner business. Also why everytime it needs to be USA? Why UN cant come to a consensus? After all they are meant to represent nations, not USA.

Im not trying to sound like a dick, USA could've helped a lot of people already for real, but when something bad happens they will look at them first, since they are in all places and never take a rest.

[A-Yty]

Ouchie. Hate to see decent people pay more taxes and have their country get more in debt so that a weapons manufacturer fat cat can install a new tennis court to their luxury yacht.

[Shiroi Koumori]

Also why everytime it needs to be USA? Why UN cant come to a consensus? After all they are meant to represent nations, not USA.

Im not trying to sound like a dick, USA could've helped a lot of people already for real, but when something bad happens they will look at them first, since they are in all places and never take a rest.

USA is a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN. The other permanent members with veto power are China, France, Russia and UK. Do you think all of these 5 countries can come out with a decision that they all agree? I don't think so....

As for the USA, if I am not mistaken, that country designates itself as a "policeman of the world".

[Ratty]

As for the USA, if I am not mistaken, that country designates itself as a "policeman of the world".

Our leaders have dragged us into that role it seems. Even the people who were initially enthusiastic about this have been losing steam. The only reason the military is able to stay so well staffed is that being a soldier is steady work during the depression. (They really were having trouble with that before the depression hit.) When that movie "Team America: World Police" came out it was a joke, now not so much. One of if not the major reason for the Iraq war was obviously just to justify our massively bloated military, which we've kept ridiculously huge (and growing) since its build up in WW2.

The absurdly large military was justified as a deterrent and defense during the Cold War, funny thing is that war effectively ended in 1989. The military was about to be shrunk and become smaller, more modernized and well trained before we suddenly had to go to war with Iraq in 2003. As Donald Rumsfeld justified it at the time "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want or wish to have at a later time." This prevention of shrinking was mighty convenient for all of the people with political ties who'd been getting rich selling tons of supplies to America's massive military.

The military importance to our economy is so out of control that while citizens are starving and being pushed out of their homes the government spends $436 million tax payer dollars on tanks the army has explicitly said it doesn't want. Just because they're built in Ohio which is absurdly important in our messed up election system. As George Carlin said we like war because we're good at it, which is good because we don't seem to do very well at anything else these days.

[beingthehero]

The most frustrating thing about this is that a very slim minority of Americans support any action in Syria - 25% according to CNN. Everything about this stinks. Why would Assad use a chemical strike on the outskirts of the capital when the war has gone in his favor for the past year? Why would he ignore one of the most crucial, commonsense lessons from World War I- that the wind is loyal to no army and that your own poison gas very may well drift back over to you? Why does Obama, who wisely decided to let France and Britain do the heavy lifting in Libya, suddenly seem so resolute to attack Syria that nobody in the US wants?

[Shiroi Koumori]

Perhaps it is due to OIL?

[Lelygax]

USA is a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN. The other permanent members with veto power are China, France, Russia and UK. Do you think all of these 5 countries can come out with a decision that they all agree? I don't think so....

Permanent member doesnt should make them

As for the USA, if I am not mistaken, that country designates itself as a "policeman of the world".

"Policeman" can be sometimes corrupt too like any other person, it varies. Also if someone else should designate them, not USA itself. Its like I saying "Im Phoenix Wright" and then start acting as him. As I already stated they could have helped a lot of people, but it seems that they try to enforce their help doesnt matter how so they could bring their huge toys to the battlefield until they lose interest and leave the scene without cleaning it.

If they are really so noble why they dont start using all this money or great part of it promoting peace? Instead of waiting until a war starts, they could send money for food and houses in these very poor countries, so they dont fall in criminality and become a violent country. But no, they need to wait something that involves guns begin, THEN they come, wipe everything and start helping with orientation and money to rebuild the destroyed part. So this country will be in debt, debt because they helped a country in a war, a war tha became 2x bigger because they intervened...

TL;DR: War sucks.

[Mooning Freddy]

Kerry: War fatigue does not absolve us Of our responsibility in Syria.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/kerry-war-fatigue-does-not-absolve-us-of-our-responsibility

The Englishmen and Germans are out, French are still in. Freedom fries? Attack may come on Monday.

[Lelygax]

The secretary of state stressed that possible intervention in Syria would not be another Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It would be limited action to ensure “a despots brutal and flagrant use of chemical weapons is held accountable.”

Months later...

We are here covering the news of what could be called "AIL" war, because its happening like in "A"fghanistan, "I"raq and "L"ibya.

This coincidence is ironic, almost OIL (No, its obvious doesnt have any meaning, for real)

Its ever like that, they send some soldiers that obviously will be attacked because they are invading a territory where a battle is happening, then they will be like "we need to retaliate, our people have been harmed in this place". Everyone will like "Mr. President is right, they're a threat after all"and the rest everyone knows...

[Flame]

The possibility that the rebels poisoned themselves is not only crazy, it's impossible. Why? Because the rebels don't have chemical weapons.

Do you know that for sure? the rebels are not one unified group, and that's the whole problem. As one guy interviewed said, "everyone wants to be the next great leader". that's why there is no central leadership for the opposition.

there's also the matter of the radical Islam elements present in the middle east, such as Al-Quaeda and such, who have no problem killing their own people to achieve their goals. And with all the surplus weaponry and equipment that always seems to pour out of Russia post-Soviet Union, I have no problem believing that Assad had no part in chemical weapons being used, and it being a ruse by radical Islam to bring the US in to do it's dirty work. because what will we do. We will invade, depose Assad, and set up "free" elections. And who will win these elections? Islamic politicians such as Morsi.

I find it EXTREMELY suspicious that chemical weapons were used, after Obama declared them a red line for the U.S.A's involvement.

The entire chemical arsenal of Syria is tightly guarded by the government.

Do you know that for sure? What do you know exactly, about the failed government's inner workings? It's very possible for there to be rebel sympathizers within the government. Inside agents. Not to mention the previously mentioned old army surplus material that pours out of countries like Russia. (and the U.S.A too, let's not blindly point the finger and ignore home base here, we do this too)

The other side of the coin? If the rebels get hold of it, it could easily find its way to terrorists fighting alongside the rebels, like AL-qaida. This is why the West must intervene in the case when there's a danger they'd get the arsenal.

Radical Islamist groups are already involved, and have been involved since the start of the Arab Spring. The goal is to depose mostly secular leaders in the middle East and replace them with "Democratically elected" Islamic leaders.

And this is where I get to the point: Obama and his allies don't intend to dispose of Assad. They never said they they did. They only want to punish him. How? A well-planned attack of the chemical facilities is a possibility. If Syria's chemical arsenal is destroyed, they'd achieve two goals at once: they prevent the regime from further use of the weaponry and the rebels from getting their hands on it.

There is no  such thing as just "punishing" a country with a military strike. That's a logical fallacy. You attack a country, you have declared war with it. Plain and simple. "Punishment" involves sanctions and UN political action. Not military force.

If it was so simple to just punish a regime, there would not be the massive debate the rest of the international community is having. All would be said and done. This notion of punishing someone by attacking their country, is just a reassurance so people don't immediately start to panic over the prospect of ANOTHER middle Eastern war.

Jeez, I am amazed how people all over the internet are going "it's all an American / Western excuse to invade another country blah blah"
It's like nobody gives a rat's ass about a tyrant massacring people by the dozens of thousands anymore.

And why should we? We are not here to protect the rest of the world. Syria is not our ally. None of the Middle Eastern Countries are our allies. They do not care about us. We are, when we get involved, just a convenient way to do their dirty work.

And as Jorge said, we have more pressing problems at home.

We have an ENTIRE CITY that just went BANKRUPT.

Think about that. and entire city, declared bankruptcy. Not just any city either, but what was once probably the most prolific city in the country. The heart of the country's automotive industry.

if we can't help our own country's economic problems, why should we spend our money on a country that doesn't care about us, and just sees us as a convenient army for hire?

I'll just let this article speak for itself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355934/hell-them-doctrine-jonah-goldberg

Kerry: War fatigue does not absolve us Of our responsibility in Syria.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/kerry-war-fatigue-does-not-absolve-us-of-our-responsibility

The Englishmen and Germans are out, French are still in. Freedom fries? Attack may come on Monday.

I still don't get what "responsibility" we have.

We have little to do with Syria. a Moral responsibility? we are not ones to talk about moral responsibility after the disaster we wreaked in Iraq under false pretenses.

[X]

I agree with pretty much everything that both Flame and Jorge have stated. America has no right to involve itself in foreign affairs that don't outright concern it. Also America really needs to clean up it's own backyard BEFORE it can even remotely begin to help other nations. If you can't help yourself, you're useless to everyone else around you. America is a very dirty country when you look at it; corrupt politics, big oil companies, big corporations, legality issues, denied rights & freedoms, Neo Nazis, KKK, corrupt militia, false and controlled media, no proper healthcare system, etc. The list goes on, and on. All this dirt and they think they can police the rest of the world for the better? God's not going to bless American no-matter how much they preach otherwise. and I pity the people within that broken system that have to live in it. it's not right and it's not fair, to them or anyone else.

[TheouAegis]

US has no moral standing at all. Kerry always has been a blowhard talking out his ass, that's why he lost to Bush of all people. And all this from a guy that said the US needed to get the fuck out of Vietnam because it had no right to be there. ...Huh.

Seceding from the Union is a federal crime, but the US has time and again since the days of Lincoln encouraged secession and civil war. How do you think the Panama Canal was built without Colombia's permission? (Yeah, Colombia's.)

The US speaks out against internment camps at every opportunity it gets, but had its own internment camps illegally impounding Japanese-Americans. Oh sure, we've apologized time and time again for it, but that never changed anything. It didn't matter what nationality you came from ancestrally, if you were Asian and the US was fighting in some Asian country, the US recognized you as a threat to national security. And now it happens yet again but with Middle-Easterners stunned in the tainted headlights.

Territorial expansion is also criminal according to international law. Says who? The US, of course.
US: "Game over; we win!"
Other countries: "But we haven't had our turn yet."

Italy was accused of committing crimes against humanity when it invaded Yugoslavia, bombing civilian populations, but the Italians were forgiven. We bomb or shoot civilians; it's strategy or pre-emptive self-defense. Now we have science fiction novella material galore!

The US signed pacts to never use chemical weapons. Overlooking tear gas and mace (which are routinely used against civilians), the US also developed various chemical munitions, such as Lewisite, which were then used by other countries in chemical warfare. The US was even transporting mustard gas to the Atlantic front during WWII in spite of swearing off chemical warfare. The Cold War saw military spending on chemical weapons development as well -- if it's too dangerous to nuke the Ruskies, choke them all to death instead. Remember those reports of ricin scares? Ricin itself is naturally occurring, but guess which country holds a patent for military grade ricin production? Gee, that's a trustworthy country right there! But to be fair, the US did let the Japanese get away with chemical warfare and abusing human guinea pigs, all in the name of science.

[Mooning Freddy]

Wow. I am actually amazed by your comments. I know that since Iraq, citizens in the US went back to the classic American isolationism, but like I said it's simply rolling your eyes at the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their country, children being killed and poisoned and all because you "don't want to believe in the governments' lies". A whole city going bankrupt? How does that compare to families losing their homes because of a war that won't end until the despot falls? You talk about Iraq being in a chaotic state since the fall of Saddam, well that is no excuse to roll your eyes and say there's nothing to be done.

I wonder what comments I would have gotten if I brought the classic Israeli right-wing argument of "who gives a s**t about Syria, it's our enemies slaughtering themselves, doing our dirty work for us".

Short Scene of "Americans Are Not Stupid"

[Shiroi Koumori]

Hmmm... USA enters a war with other countries to let her citizens (by the way of media) forget about the troubles they have within their own backyard.