Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mooning Freddy on August 27, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
-
It's finally happening.
http://fox4kc.com/2013/08/27/united-states-great-britian-prepare-for-attack-on-syria/ (http://fox4kc.com/2013/08/27/united-states-great-britian-prepare-for-attack-on-syria/)
After more proof arrived that Assad crossed Obama's "red line" by using chemical weaponry on his citizens, USA, France and Britain prepare a "powerful punitive strike". Assad threatens to retaliate but it's unlikely for him to do so without risking his demise.
Is this the final chapter of the civil war raging for two years? Stay tuned! :P
-
Oy, this is very bad. The US military forces are already stretched and now we're going into Syria? I had a feeling this was going to happen eventually, but still, it would be better if it didn't.
-
I'm curious, what's America's motivation for the attack? You know, aside from the use of chemical weapons, which I doubt is the sole reason. I'm guessing it has something to do with the balance of power?
-
I'd wager at least some of it probably has to do with our support for 'the underdogs' all throughout the Arab Spring. Most of these dictators are generally cruel tyrants, and few would shed a tear if they were to disappear. We're just speeding that along.
...Of course, the problem is that the rebels are often *just* as bad, if not even worse. IMO our involvement in these uprisings is a fool's errand--even if Assad used chemical weapons, if he goes down there's no guarantee that whoever replaces him will end up being any less willing to use them!
-
It has to do with America and its allies having to prove their seriousness. If America set a red line for someone, and he breaks it, US has got to take an action or else they would be regarded as irrelevant. Nagumo and Gunlord both hit right.
As for now, US doesn't intend to overthrow the government in Syria, only "punish" it.
-
I'm not up on all of it, but there's got to be something of interest there in Syria, whether it's oil or something else. The US doesn't mess around with countries that don't have something of interest (see why no military action has been taken in parts of Africa) to be plundered.
I less and less believe the "We're doing it to help them out because we care about human rights" line the US government gives every time they send the military in. There's something else there, this isn't merely a human rights campaign.
-
I'd wager at least some of it probably has to do with our support for 'the underdogs' all throughout the Arab Spring. Most of these dictators are generally cruel tyrants, and few would shed a tear if they were to disappear. We're just speeding that along.
...Of course, the problem is that the rebels are often *just* as bad, if not even worse. IMO our involvement in these uprisings is a fool's errand--even if Assad used chemical weapons, if he goes down there's no guarantee that whoever replaces him will end up being any less willing to use them!
I'd like to believe that but the truth is America and the rest of the super powers love dictators as long as they do what they're told. They can make it much easier to get whatever goods or services you want from a country. Even if their allies are forced to publicly scold them every now and then. Egypt's dictator was one of the best friends the US had in the region. Don't forget the fact that dictators in the middle east have tended more toward secularization (it's easier to secure power when you squash religious squabbles and don't have to contend with religious laws that might conflict with your decisions) and "westernization" insofar as it relates to building a military. Leading to a backlash against both among many in the general population once the dictatorships eventually crumble.
-
Maybe the US military has new weapons and they want to test them on something. Hard to test new military technology without military movement.
-
Don't forget the fact that dictators in the middle east have tended more toward secularization (it's easier to secure power when you squash religious squabbles and don't have to contend with religious laws that might conflict with your decisions) and "westernization" insofar as it relates to building a military. Leading to a backlash against both among many in the general population once the dictatorships eventually crumble.
Have no doubt that the spirit of secularization in mideastern states that have undergone military revolutions after the fall of the Ottoman empire and the end of the mandates, such as Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, was an ideological no less than political decision. It has to do with the spirit of French and British republicanism.
Ataturk is the best example: he believed that the only way to modernize Turkey and make it count is to make it more like a secular European republic. So he disposed of any remains of sultanic traditions, separated between church and state, and switched the Turkish alphabet from an Arabic to a Latin one.
So you can understand the rise in Muslim fundamentalism in those states today - the reason is that the secular state failed to "deliver the goods", i.e. improve the economy and solve the problems of inequality and corruption. So movements like the Muslim Brotherhood claim they have the answer - Islam is the answer.
-
Have no doubt that the spirit of secularization in mideastern states that have undergone military revolutions after the fall of the Ottoman empire and the end of the mandates, such as Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, was an ideological no less than political decision. It has to do with the spirit of French and British republicanism.
Ataturk is the best example: he believed that the only way to modernize Turkey and make it count is to make it more like a secular European republic. So he disposed of any remains of sultanic traditions, separated between church and state, and switched the Turkish alphabet from an Arabic to a Latin one.
So you can understand the rise in Muslim fundamentalism in those states today - the reason is that the secular state failed to "deliver the goods", i.e. improve the economy and solve the problems of inequality and corruption. So movements like the Muslim Brotherhood claim they have the answer - Islam is the answer.
Of course, though I think the ideology of it as a way to "advance" the country was more deeply held during/right after Britain and France were carving up the middle east after WW1 than it is with more modern dictators. The kind of backwards Colonial thinking that didn't understand that culture is intimately tied to environment since it's mostly a product of the particular needs and resources of the inhabitants of a given area. A European business suite is less than ideal attire for a jungle or an open desert, imported and hastily mandated ideas might hang even less comfortably on a populace. Not to suggest cultures can't or won't become more similar as they continue to change and grow over time, especially with modern globalization. Just that it can't be forced and some very directly, even if not obviously, environmentally influenced beliefs/practices are more likely to remain the same for practical reasons in a given environment.
-
The period of de-colonization gave rise to national leaders who were educated in the West and who were more European than Europeans. Indira Ghandi tried to turn India into a secular state as similar as possible to Great Britain. Obviously, such a goal was impossible, but it didn't mean she didn't try. Central Africa had an array of dictatorial leaders who were educated in France or Belgium and nevertheless turned into tyrants and mass-murderers as they learned more about modern authoritarianism and ways to gain absolute power than about democracy. They all tried to combine local culture with "western" political concepts like parliamentalism, elections (usually fake), and militarism.
I should tell you that the most interesting of the mideastern rulers today is king Abdullah II of Jordan. He's technically an absolute monarch; but only technically. One of my lecturers thesis was, and he says so after studying Jordanian history and politics thoroughly, was that the king is a prisoner of his own court. He believes that the king genuinely intended to lead liberal and democratic reforms in his country from 1999 when he ascended to throne, preparing thorough plans for that cause, but failed, because the opposition of conservative elite groups in his country was too strong.
It's actually quite amazing how he speaks English better than Arabic, and how his sincerity made the reporters think he's drunk.
Interview with King Abdullah II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKIhrXa50Mc#ws)
Drunk?: Jordan's King Abdullah II's Now-Infamous Interview With The Atlantic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azBF0le38dA#ws)
-
Syria using chemical weapons on its civilians is a hoax orchestrated by the government in order to have an excuse to invade them.
-
This theory is totally plausible, they haven't shown any proof yet and I doubt they will. USA did similar things before to have a excuse to invade a country so they can be doing the same thing again.
Someone needs to find this kind of news in Syria newspaper or something like that to be more certain.
-
America took down WTC. I won't put anything above them.
-
America also used the same tactics when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They claimed it was to end the war, but in reality the war with Japan was drawing to a close. Japan was only months away from surrender however America had an agenda in mind. The two atomic bombs were nothing more then a science experiment on a massive scale as American had no idea about what the effects of a nuclear device would be like, so they made a claim. And to this day, any one of those scientists whom are still alive will tell you that the day the bomb was dropped it was the biggest mistake and the most painful regret of their lives. It wasn't necessary, it was just a science experiment that in my opinion should never have happened.
-
In conclusion, you can't trust anything or believe anything that the Government attempts to show us. There are no such things as truths anymore.
-
Wrong, truths exist and will ever exists. They are only well hidden, anyone with time and correct assets and determination can find them, maybe someone already discovered it and decided to leave it in the shadows thinking it was better for everyone, who knows? I for sure dont, since I dont know the truth... yet.
-
Why would you ever quote Fox news for ANYTHING other than maybe Weather or sports.
Anywhere else the verdict is still "undecided", Since Obama does NOT want to get involved without the international community. We do not want nor can afford, another Iraq. The issue is that Obama decided to set a "red line" at ALL. He should not have gotten involved. Now that the "red line" has been crossed, he has to do something, or risk his administration's credibility.
That said, I hope nobody seriously believes the Syrian Government is totally at fault here right? How coincidental that when the U.S., a country which has constantly been getting involved in middle Eastern conflicts to "help the innocent", threatens strict action if Chemical weapons are used, suddenly, OH WHAT A SURPRISE, CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE USED
It is some fringe group of the rebels who want the U.S. to take Assad down. Now, if that group has some kind of connection to the regime, it's possible. but I don't really believe that it is entirely the regime ignoring the international community. It cannot afford that ignorance. Dictators have been removed for far pettier reasons. Saddam was removed under completely false ones.
And seriously. Don't pay attention to Fox news. They are probably the least trustworthy news site behind even the Onion. And that's satire.
-
This theory is totally plausible, they haven't shown any proof yet and I doubt they will. USA did similar things before to have a excuse to invade a country so they can be doing the same thing again.
Someone needs to find this kind of news in Syria newspaper or something like that to be more certain.
Are you kidding me? I'm pretty sure the videos of wounded people being treated with aftereffects of deadly gases, and stories of refugees are proof enough. Unless you'd claim that the rebels fake those, but everyone except the Russians and Chinese say the evidence is apparent enough. Also they claimed in the news that Israeli military intelligence intercepted orders by the Syrian army to use chemical agents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600306/biden-no-doubt-assad-responsible-for-syria-chemical-weapons-attack/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600306/biden-no-doubt-assad-responsible-for-syria-chemical-weapons-attack/)
The only question is why they only decided to act after use of chemical weapones. The Syrian regime has been bombing innocent civilians using conventional weapons all through the war.
-
America also used the same tactics when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They claimed it was to end the war, but in reality the war with Japan was drawing to a close. Japan was only months away from surrender however America had an agenda in mind. The two atomic bombs were nothing more then a science experiment on a massive scale as American had no idea about what the effects of a nuclear device would be like, so they made a claim. And to this day, any one of those scientists whom are still alive will tell you that the day the bomb was dropped it was the biggest mistake and the most painful regret of their lives. It wasn't necessary, it was just a science experiment that in my opinion should never have happened.
To play devil's advocate I think at least most of the people who made the decision to drop the bomb were thinking about the possibly hundreds of thousands of soldiers who would be killed in the invasion and occupation of Japan. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the resulting cancers and mutations are among the biggest tragedies in human history. And certainly there were elements in the planning who were already considering the bomb as a future securer of American power/war deterrent. But I don't believe many people at the time were thinking about or even aware of the long term effects of radiation. That's why there were suddenly so many horror movies in the 1950s like THEM! (and in Japan Gojira/Godzilla) where everyone's going "Oh shit, radiation. What is it and exactly what does it do?"
PS- Not to suggest the USA is above using it's own or any other citizens to test weapons, both civilians and military personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States) The government has done many, many radiation experiments on mostly-poor/minority citizens (including children and pregnant women) without their knowledge. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a matter of public record. I just don't think the primary aim of the two Japanese bombings was as an experiment. I imagine a lot of people just thought of it as a much more effective version of the firebombings we'd been doing on mostly-wooden Japanese cities for years by then.
-
The US getting involved in this is a bad idea.
-
This is going to be another Afghanistan. :(
-
I am actually quite disappointed. Until now I got no redneck responses like "USA F**K YEAH" or "Eat lead die motherf**ker die"
What's up with kids today. >:(
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fopeusa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2F1ade0d9c2db011e2bb3e22000a1fb8a8_7-612x300.jpg&hash=ac246e9d8adeb441447a54a79fa01db017191934)
-
I am actually quite disappointed. Until now I got no redneck responses like "USA F**K YEAH" or "Eat lead die motherf**ker die"
What's up with kids today. >:(
Even those people are largely war weary or already dead. Or wouldn't support anything Obama did even if it was exactly what they wanted. This is generalizing but in my experience most Americans today couldn't give a damn what happens in the rest of the world if it meant gas would go down to a reasonable price. I expect it's much the same in many other countries.
-
Are you kidding me? I'm pretty sure the videos of wounded people being treated with aftereffects of deadly gases, and stories of refugees are proof enough. Unless you'd claim that the rebels fake those, but everyone except the Russians and Chinese say the evidence is apparent enough. Also they claimed in the news that Israeli military intelligence intercepted orders by the Syrian army to use chemical agents.
I've not seem any video yet, but they could totally fake it if they wanted. Actors and make-up exists, also they could use old footage from this place or a very similar place.
What Im saying is: someone have some news about that without the source being USA? Im talking about a video footage or a newspaper that have seem and written what they saw, not someone spreading more and more something that they have heard.
They invade countries and then when everything is okay, they stay there, stealing resources with a fake excuse like "we're guaranting that everything is okay there" until they got what they wanted. Its like a hungry friend that comes to your house with a excuse, only to eat some food and then say goodbye.
-
David Cameron said today they have evidence of Syrian security forces using chemical weaponry 14 time. 14 times.
Goddamnit, you can say that those fighting against Assad are no better then him, but there's much more than enough proof that he's committing atrocities and crimes against humanity. Israeli intelligence were the first to notify Obama of the intercepts proving he's using sarin and other nerve gases, months before they decided to take action. And no, it's not in Israel's interest to see Assad's demise. His fall would create chaos that would be very bad for the country. But that kind of monster cannot stay in power.
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.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/uk-intelligence-syrian-regime-chemical-weapons (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/uk-intelligence-syrian-regime-chemical-weapons)
Syria chemical weapons - Sarin gas attack near Damascus? - Truthloader (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GPTqxf8rE#)
-
It's like nobody gives a rat's ass about a tyrant massacring people by the dozens of thousands anymore.
Unfortunately this is probably true to a large extent, at least in America. We're sick of war and wary of any supposedly humanitarian reasons for going to it. After being led to the trap of Iraq under false pretenses to support oil and the military/it's suppliers. Hell the Iraq war was originally codenamed Operation Iraqi Liberation, perhaps as a sick joke. "Freedom" was later put in place of "Liberation" in the title, but hundreds of thousands of (mostly civilian) casualties, billions upon billions of dollars and a decade later, we never did find any evidence of the supposed motive for going there. Add to this the fact that America is beyond broke because of the multiple wars we've fought over the last decade, and the fact we're still struggling through a historically bad depression brought about by poor regulation during that same period. And it's not hard to see why many Americans are becoming very cynical and uncaring.
-
HEre's what I think will likely happen:
1.US will invade Syria, take Assad out, and install one of our puppets.
2.Puppet will rule for the next several years
3.Puppet will suddenly gain a backbone, stop doing what the US tells him to do
4.Puppet will be deemed a "threat to mankind" and need to be taken out.
THe US has a terrible track record with installing leaders, see Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noreiga, and I'm going to bet Hamid Karzai will soon be on that list too. The same thing happens every time.
David Cameron said today they have evidence of Syrian security forces using chemical weaponry 14 time. 14 times.
Goddamnit, you can say that those fighting against Assad are no better then him, but there's much more than enough proof that he's committing atrocities and crimes against humanity. Israeli intelligence were the first to notify Obama of the intercepts proving he's using sarin and other nerve gases, months before they decided to take action. And no, it's not in Israel's interest to see Assad's demise. His fall would create chaos that would be very bad for the country. But that kind of monster cannot stay in power.
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.
Do we know for a fact that it WAS Assad who used the chemical weapons though? I haven't heard anything other than speculation that because Assad's the bad guy, it obviously must have been him. To be honest, I could see rebels using CWs and blaming the regime as a means of getting the US involved (which is something they've wanted from the beginning.)
America's become a terrible place as far as profiteering goes. There's strong evidence that the Iraq war was started all because a few people knew it would make them a lot of money. Syria is a major oil exporter and I don't think any of us would be surprised if this was just a convenient excuse to be able to get at their oil. Not saying that's what's going on, but it's a possibility given the US government's recent past.
-
The possibility that the rebels poisoned themselves is not only crazy, it's impossible. Why? Because the rebels don't have chemical weapons. The entire chemical arsenal of Syria is tightly guarded by the government. 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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html) 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.
-
The most frustrating thing about this is that a very slim minority of Americans support any action in Syria - 25% according to CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) 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?
-
Perhaps it is due to OIL?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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...
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FBILL_1db666_298081.jpg&hash=c8bdbcc3e23a8307639468faa0c85b19a4a6b1ad)
-
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" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRQFLBeFHnA#)
-
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.
-
Again, it's not that I don't think we should help...
...it's that I think the USA should help themselves first.
I'm sick of my tax dollars going to fund wars I don't believe in, and supporting entire areas with people who have time and again not been able to reconcile their problems.
I also believe this is truly about the OIL under those countries, and I'll tell you why:
Similar strife happens routinely in South America.
Ecuador (my country) is constantly having issues with Colombia. Venezuela has its own heads up its ass to the point in which Toilet Paper is a 'luxury item'. Nations like Uruguay and Paraguay don't even cause a blip in the radar when they have issues. The USA does not even bat an eyelash when these nations are in trouble.
But the moment there's a problem in Syria or Palestine of Israel or Lybia, the USA is all "We must protect those people! Send in troops and Aid!"
It's fucked up. Clearly there's another agenda in play.
I stay, stop aiding, stop helping, and let the chips fall where they will. USA needs to fix its own nonsense issues before it tries to be 'great benefactor' to everyone else. How egotistical it is that the USA still thinks it's some kind of Iron Golem with Paladin Armor on. Under that, we have the problems people have mentioned:
-Corporations own the government because of lobbies and special interest groups. So long as those exist, government will never budge in a way that doesn't better corporations' best interests.
-The USA's legislative branch is a revolving door where the congressmen become lobbyists for the very companies that were paying their kickbacks and slush funds when they were in office.
-The backbone of society: Infrastructure and Education, take a back seat to the Prison System and the Xenophobic firearms culture.
-Gerrymandering (to manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class) has become so rampant in order to maximize vote importance in key areas... effectively 'gaming' the Electoral College.
-As mentioned before, Health Care is problematic (again, because healthcare is done mostly via corporations).
-The people who are well-off, even barely, think that the people who are not well-off are lazy, entitled, parasitic creatures, instead of noticing that the economy has had good honest hard-working people laid off and out of work... again, because it's easier for a corporation to pay a China factory employee cents/hour instead of paying a person in the USA dollars/hour, even with overseas shipping costs.
...there are more problems but I'm drained.
-
hundreds of thousands of refugees
Yesterday you said it was dozens of thousands, now it's hundreds of thousands? But that's just it, you said it yourself
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fopeusa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2F1ade0d9c2db011e2bb3e22000a1fb8a8_7-612x300.jpg&hash=ac246e9d8adeb441447a54a79fa01db017191934)
Between 600,000 to a million Iraqi men women and children are now "liberated" in that they are dead, forever. No bringing them back. And no bringing back the billions (I think it may literally be trillions now) of dollars spent on the war. But oh, we can't afford healthcare or housing for our own citizens who's tax dollars have been paying for these wars. Paying for it theoretically anyway, since the country has gone from having a record surplus of money in the year 2000 to being in record debt.
As I, Theou and Jorge have all pointed out the US has no moral leg to stand on when it comes to human rights outrage, if you don't believe us just ask Star Trek's George Takei who was in a Japanese internment camp along with thousands of other American citizens. Or some of the thousands of peaceful protestors we've hit with tear gas and beatings. Whenever we go into a country to try and "help" them we only cause suffering and death for the people there, unless you consider Vietnam and Iraq (which were both started on the bases of false information) to be rousing success. Or the Korean war which never technically ended. But oh, the Korean war wasn't a war, at least not according to the US, it was a "Police Action". So I guess we can't be blamed for how shitty life is in half of Korea.
Let's not even mention the government sanctioned and aided genocide of Native Americans or how much we helped the Philippines.
-
All of those points you're making are good. Still, there's this concept called R2P on the table which should be above national interests. At the very least, should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect)
The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of mass atrocity crimes. The R2P has three "pillars":
1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
Unfortunately, while the UN has said several times R2P is a fundamental of international law, making the security council follow it is friggin' impossible. I blame Russia and China, you can say USA is part of it as well.
But that's not my point. USA is beside the point here. You see Ratty, my point is that citizens who care at least a little bit about universal human rights must be out on the streets yelling: "By any means, intervene! By any means, intervene!" The genocide in Rwanda is on the consciousness of the world's democracies, and it wasn't a century ago, it was in the middle of the 90's. A million people were slaughtered on the streets using friggin' machetes, and the Western democracies did absolutely NOTHING to stop it. People often talk about the Jewish Holocaust and how it should never happen again. Well, it has happened again, and more than once. And people don't care. Why? Because it happens in third world countries and the first world considers it a lost cause anyway.
That is not a change of views, that is a loss of morality. You say intervention makes things worse? Say it to the Tootsies slaughtered in Rwanda or the Albanian and Bosnians who would have been slaughtered by the Serbs if NATO wouldn't have intervened.
-
I say intervention makes things worse, if only because most of the time when it happens it's only really for profit or to prevent the spread of ideologies which are considered threatening. Like Jorge said the US doesn't get all in a huff when this sort of thing happens in South America, unless you count Iran-Contra, where President Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund a secret army (the Contras) to overthrow a democratically elected government in Central America because it was Socialist. (For the record, despite all the citizens who were raped and murdered by the Contras the Sandinistas only left the government when they were eventually democratically voted out by people who were tired of being terrorized by the Contras.) Or when the CIA staged a counter-revolution to protect American company's banana production.
Fact is the US can't afford to get mixed up in another war, and if they say they have to for the R2P or any other humanitarian reason, and the place they have to "just happens" to be one of strategic importance in oh, say, an Oil rich region, you should be very suspicious. As Theou pointed out, if all we were going to do was destroy his chemical weapons plants, we could have just done it by now. And I doubt there would have been all this bluster.
-
Oh yeah I forgot about the indians...
But they get casinos, tax-free lives, and cheap booze, so we've made amends with them.
No one has a responsibility to protect. If that was the case, why, as has been pointed out, is the US the primary force in any and all police action? Because the rest of the UN knows the US will do it. But really, why the fuck should anyone give a shit about the rest of the UN? For all the crap we've been spouting about how morally corrupt the US is, the rest of the UN has done some pretty seriously fucked up shit throughout history. Let's overlook Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia for now, since everyone knows how fucked up they were. The French, British, Spanish and Portugese were four of the biggest douchebag countries in the history of the world. They're responsible for more crimes against humanity than almost any other nation. Oh sure, to be fair they had different governments in those days, but they wouldn't even be on a world map if not for their crimes. 95% of Americans (North and South) probably wouldn't even know those countries existed if not for their atrocities. Without Spanish and Portugese systematic genocide, there would be no Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, or Mexico. There would be no Hong Kong, opium trade, or modern India without British asshats.
Korea shouldn't even be on the world map at all, period. That area should have been a Chinese, Japanese or Russian expansion centuries ago when the Silla, Paekche and Koguryo nations were invaded (gotta give the Koreans some respect for fending off four major world powers all these centuries). That's not anti-Korean sentiment -- I love Korean girls -- but a simple fact of world history; North and South Korea should not even exist, they're products of the War. The US was at fault for the Korean War 100% all because they didn't want Russia or China to have any reign over Eurasia's dingle. Let them continue their in-fighting, it's in their blood and part of their national heritage.
The US is not the UN, nor is Britain the UN, nor is Russian the UN, nor is China the UN, nor is France the UN, etc., etc. The governments of the nations of the world wrote up a bunch of various pacts and treaties so their leaders could pretend they were making nice and would play fair. The UN is a load of crap. Even the League of Nations was a load of crap. Many of the various pacts and treaties and laws and rules set forth by either of those major global unions have been violated by the same nations that signed them. The UN is nothing more than a gentleman's club. No member nation of the UN or League of Nations ever cared about human rights or world peace; the UN and LoN were strictly alliances built up around peace treaties. It's easier to keep an eye on your enemies if you live with them.
It's not a lack of morals in the world populace or a lack of love or respect for other people; it's just the natural order. Why give a shit about people in other countries that we will likely never meet or see who are killing each other when people have been killing each other by the thousands for millenia upon millenia? It's a fact of human nature. It's the history of our world. Let the rest of the world deal with their own problems, each nation is responsible for itself.
And all those little kids starving or getting shot up in Africa? Blame their parents for fucking like rabbits and just making more kids to starve or get shot or sold as slaves or whatever. The world sucks; it's not the US's problem or Japan's problem or China's problem or Britain's problem or Russia's problem or Germany's problem or France's problem or Canada's problem (bet you were wondering if I'd ever bring up Canada). If you want to prevent kids from starving to death in Africa, sterilize African males. Why don't the major governments care about Africa? Because neither Russia, China, nor Iran give a rat's ass about anything south of Egypt. Except for a few diamonds, there's nothing there for them. And as long as Russia doesn't care about Africa, the US won't care about Africa. If you want to make a change in Africa and get the US government's attention, convince Putin to invade Africa.
(For the record, I think a lot of males need to be sterilized or girls need to be, whatever the word is. Evn China's one-child policy wasn't that effective. Breeding is encouraged only because it is required to support the previous generation. If you want people to pay for you when you get older, have two kids. If they want people to pay for them when they get older, they need to have two kids each as well. No nation can support that, so every major nation's populace needs to be sterilized and brought back down to manageable levels. If you can't sterilize a population, let it kill itself instead.)
-
Everyone pretty much summed it up nicely.
I'll re-iterate though:
These people are NOT our friends. They do NOT like us, and never will. They are quick to cry that we won't help them, but I'd like to see any of those nations in the middle east help the US if the situations were reversed. (economically as well as situation)
The middle east has been killing itself for YEARS. And they probably will continue to do so. A good example is the Israel/Palestine conflict which never ends. Israel keeps encroaching on Palestinian Land, and God forbid Palestine defends itself and lobs a bomb over, Israel retaliates with about 5. And the cycle goes on and on.
We need not involve ourselves when we cannot help our OWN people, and the countries we "help" do not want help, and are incorrigible. The islamic middle east is in the Dark Ages. That needs to blow over naturally. trying to get involved and 'fix" things, only makes it worse.
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?
Have you ever even SEEN Detroit? Detroit was once possibly the most industrially rich city in the country. The heart of US auto creation. It's literally called Detroit: The Motor City.
Detroit is a literal ghost town. tons of homes abandoned, and mayors who just can't seem to do anything about anything. try to imagine how it is possible for a city to go bankrupt.
Also how does it compare? simple. It's right in our fucking back yard. Why should those people losing their homes to a despot be any more important than people losing their homes IN OUR OWN COUNTRY? Why do they get special treatment over our own citizens? Why should we CARE if they lose their homes? It's not our country. That's THEIR problem. If we can't solve the same shit in our own country, how do you expect us to solve it in another?
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.
we CAUSED said chaotic state. That's why I roll my eyes. We opened pandora's box, and there's nothing we can do to stop it now. We never should have been there to start. the BEST we can do, is leave, and let it heal on it's own, and stop getting involved in these conflicts. We literally can NOT afford it.
-
Oh, lord. Maybe Allan Bloom was right. Maybe our generation DOES NOT care anymore.
You want my summary? There was a generation once. It was called The Greatest Generation. The greatest generation wanted to create a better world, and was ready to give its life for that goal. The greatest generation believed in freedom, in equality, in universal law.
Now you come out and tell me about how the world is corrupt. You don't try to find a way to fix the corruption. You talk to me about the past, instead of talking about the future.
You talk about human nature, you don't care about fixing it. You talk about wars as being inherently bad. You don't mention JUST wars, wars that were fought for freedom, for equality. You disregard the great dreams of mankind, of unity, of peace, of justice.
You disregard the PROGRESS that mankind has overcome, you disregard that the world today IS better now than it was centuries ago, that individualism and personal freedom are new concepts which didn't exist in the past, you forget the dream of people coming to a phase when they understand each other instead of trying to take advantage of each other.
None of that would ever happen if people sit and bitch and do nothing. Remember the saying? "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"?
Now, I am not blaming America. You have every right to take care of your families more than foreigners in a faraway land. But I am not talking about Syria here when I remind you of a motto that was popular during WW2- "The world cannot exist half slave and half free". This is not just about Syria, it's about Mexico, and Russia, and China, and every other country where violence and corruption reign supreme. You are the ones who are responsible with fixing it. Not USA; I mean, each and every one of you, as individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind)
-
Oh, lord. Maybe Allan Bloom was right. Maybe our generation DOES NOT care anymore.
You want my summary? There was a generation once. It was called The Greatest Generation.
I'm not sure which generation you're talking about, but in America what's usually called "The Greatest Generation" is the one that put a hundred thousand people in internment camps for the crime of being of Japanese descent. Then proceeded to support racial segregation, nuclear prolifieration and proxy wars with the USSR for decades. Oh and they also fought WW2, thus arbitrarily winning them the "greatest generation" moniker.
The greatest generation wanted to create a better world, and was ready to give its life for that goal. The greatest generation believed in freedom, in equality, in universal law.
That would be the baby boomers during the free love movement, they eventually sold out.
Now you come out and tell me about how the world is corrupt. You don't try to find a way to fix the corruption. You talk to me about the past, instead of talking about the future.
Look at Vietnam, Iraq, hell even Afghanistan. How would going to war here help the Syrian or US people's future?
You talk about human nature, you don't care about fixing it.
Again, how would going to war with Syria fix anything?
You talk about wars as being inherently bad. You don't mention JUST wars, wars that were fought for freedom, for equality. You disregard the great dreams of mankind, of unity, of peace, of justice.
"This country (America) was founded by Slave Owners who wanted to be free." - George Carlin
Show me a "just war" and I'll show you a lot of innocent civilians who have died for something that was no concern of theirs, and a lot of people getting rich in the background.
You disregard the PROGRESS that mankind has overcome, you disregard that the world today IS better now than it was centuries ago, that individualism and personal freedom are new concepts which didn't exist in the past, you forget the dream of people coming to a phase when they understand each other instead of trying to take advantage of each other.
Going to war with Syria won't advance that dream. You want to help the people in Syria? Try to arrange peace talks, try to give medical supplies to the innocent civilians and soldiers on both sides. Don't drop more bombs on them.
None of that would ever happen if people sit and bitch and do nothing. Remember the saying? "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"?
Nothing, or something that kills thousands of innocents for the benefit of a few.
Now, I am not blaming America. You have every right to take care of your families more than foreigners in a faraway land. But I am not talking about Syria here when I remind you of a motto that was popular during WW2- "The world cannot exist half slave and half free". This is not just about Syria, it's about Mexico, and Russia, and China, and every other country where violence and corruption reign supreme. You are the ones who are responsible with fixing it. Not USA; I mean, each and every one of you, as individuals.
I'm all for helping people, but you don't do that with invasions based on ulterior motives. And you can't do it while you're falling apart at the seams yourself.
-
At a certain point this discussion has shifted from a discussion of the necessity of intervention in Syria to a discussion where I'm explaining the importance of humanitarian intervention, as a necessity to defend international law and human lives, and all the rest of you defending the realistic view of international politics (a view which claims that states only intervene to defend their interests, such as money, status or security, opposed to the constructivistic view which claims that states would sometimes intervene to promote or defend values such as freedom or international law).
Blame my naiveté with believing that promoting universal values is important in international relations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28international_relations%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28international_relations%29)
-
I'm not made of stone.
I personally care...
...but I also care about the problems the USA has on its own. Take care of your own issues before you go try and work out others' issues, is what I say.
We're just unfit to help right now, financially... despite what the USA leaders would like other nations to believe.
-
There is A LOT I could say about this, but I can simply say that I trust our current president to make the right call.
-
The "Greatest Generation" persevered through the Great Depression and continued to focus on improving THEIR OWN COUNTRY while the world around them was at war. The Greatest Generation never had any desire to help the rest of the world. The US never officially entered the war UNTIL JAPAN BOMBED PEARL HARBOR, which was a Navy base located on AMERICAN IMPERIALIZED SOIL (meaning the US got it by the same means Japan was trying to get islands in the Pacific Ocean). Even when Germany attacked US merchant vessels, the US simply admonished Germany, basically saying, "Hey, leave us alone or we'll stick our noses into this situation," even though the US was already supplying weapons anyway. The Greatest Generation wanted NOTHING to do with the war until a bunch of weird monkeys thought they could get away with attacking the US. Hitler was a crazy white guy. Hirohito was a DOG that needed to be put down for attacking humans. Admiral Yamamoto knew in a Western war you had to play by certain rules and when his plans got bungled he knew the US would retaliate harder against Japan than against any other country. Whether or not he actually called the US a sleeping giant doesn't change the fact that people viewed the US as a sleeping giant TWO YEARS INTO THE WAR. It took two years for the US to buck up and join the allies. It took two years for the US to stop being neutral. While much of Europe and northern Africa were under Axis control the US was citizens were happily earning pennies to feed their filthy disenfranchised families. Then Congress got the bright idea to join the war -- not to help the Allied powers, but to ship off many of the destitute and unemployed as well as boost industry. Male citizens didn't go into the military because they wanted to spread democracy and American ideals across the globe; they did it because they were starving or because THE WERE CONSCRIPTED. Conscription wasn't reinstated in order for the US to help the Allied powers fight the Axis powers -- it took two years to sign it into law -- but because some Americans feared if the Axis won the war in Europe, it could threaten American interests. There was nothing great about it, older citizens felt kids didn't know how to defend their country and wanted mandatory martial training of youth in case the need to defend the country would arise in the wake of an Axis victory.
A lot of money is spent flowering history. It's only in recent years thanks to a relaxed attitude that US history is getting deflowered.
Our president thinks every American making more than $15,000 a year needs to pay for his/her own medical insurance in addition to the medical insurance of any dependents, regardless of whether or not said person can actually afford any sort of insurance. If after car payments you only have $100 a month for food, our president thinks you don't need that food because health insurance is more important. Or maybe he thinks you don't need that car and thus don't need to have a means to get to work to earn enough money to buy food and medical insurance. Ultimately I might buck up and get insurance even though I can barely afford it -- I don't have a car or even a license -- but Obamacare is bad for the economy and won't change a thing. They said it's because people can't afford trips to the ER and so the feds are losing lots of taxes because the hospitals write off their losses, but since you don't even have to pay the uninsured citizen penalty tax if it applies to you, the new law will have absolutely no effect at all. Our president is a conniving shit-faced bastard -- and I don't mean his face is the color of shit.
-
www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)&
Well any action now is entirely dependent on Congress, and it seems they will hardly be any more encouraged to vote for force than what Parliament was.
-
I'm for Obamacare, even if I am not sure I can afford it... but that's another topic.
Can we keep it on Syria, etc.?
I know it's somewhat-related but we should stick to the subject (I'm guilty of a bit of derailing as well, just trying to bring the thread back).
-
Of course Obama is going to congress for support. He's supposed to, it's the law. Just because other presidents have broken the law in the past doesn't mean it should be a shock that Obama doesn't this time. Could just be a well-played tactic; I won't trust him yet. Then again, in a few more years, I won't have to trust him.
-
He is using a dirty tactic, like "Accept this strike or act as someone that is letting this guy kill kids". He is not even giving a more pacific option to them. A military strike means send soldiers or send missiles? I really doesnt know, thats why Im asking.
-
At a certain point this discussion has shifted from a discussion of the necessity of intervention in Syria to a discussion where I'm explaining the importance of humanitarian intervention
Maybe you were but I'm still talking about how military intervention in other people's civil wars, especially intervention that is rushed through without so much as a "what-do-you-think-of-this-evidence" to the people who are going to have to pay for it all is at best misguided, at worst (and most likely) a cynical grab for resources or good old fashioned imperialism. And about how this manufactured outrage at these crimes is just that, manufactured in an effort to hide whatever the real motives for this action is. Because we've done worse, and worse happens all the time. Heck with our track record we might even be doing worse right now.
He is using a dirty tactic, like "Accept this strike or act as someone that is letting this guy kill kids". He is not even giving a more pacific option to them. A military strike means send soldiers or send missiles? I really doesnt know, thats why Im asking.
A military strike suggests a small precise attack, but I have difficulty seeing how even that could stop from escalating. Who does Syria have treaties with? Who's just waiting for an excuse to attack the US, or its closer ally Israel? Remember the match that lit the fuse of WW1 was the assassination of a single obscure Austrian noble.
-
Heh. Speaking of that single obscure Austrian noble, has anyone else here ever seen the old movie "Assassins Bureau"? I think that was the name of it. It was an old comedy about a league of assassins hired to assassinate the leader of the Assassins Bureau. Of course the leader of the Assassins Bureau isn't too keen on being assassinated and he and the lady who put out the hit on him fall in love. It even has a battle on a zeppelin.
-
That austrian noble appears in this movie or it just a random mention because this movie is that good? :O
-
Of course Obama is going to congress for support. He's supposed to, it's the law. Just because other presidents have broken the law in the past doesn't mean it should be a shock that Obama doesn't this time. Could just be a well-played tactic; I won't trust him yet. Then again, in a few more years, I won't have to trust him.
I would like to bring myself back from a normative discussion to a realist one. Journalists say that Obama fu**ed-up. Why? Because he marked a red line for Syria, the chemical weaponry line, and when Israeli intelligence informed him of the intercepts of Syrian army ordering the use of CW months ago, he did nothing. And now he appeals to the Congress even though his action is unpopular and he can act without consulting Congress. All of this makes him appear incompetent.
You can't just go around, making threats that you don't stand behind. If you mark a red line, it's a red line no matter what. If you fail to take action, your enemies would disregard any further threats. Obama didn't just draw a red line in Syria, he also did in Iran, about their nuclear program. Obama's weakness would encourage Israel to act alone against Iran. Israel did it before, destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. PM Netanyahu said more than once that if the world does not take serious actions to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, Israel will, alone.
That is something USA does not want to happen.
-
Why is he making 'red lines' in the first place?
This isn't a dick-waving contest.
OoooOooOooo they won't take the USA Seriously... OooOOooo...
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffunnycatwallpapers.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2Fgrumpy-cat-good-1.jpg&hash=390d2ab41659e14092c18e06b6acf564bd39c17a)
-
FOUND IT! Love IMDB.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064045/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064045/)
"Assassination Bureau"
In London in the early 1900s reporter Sonya Winter (Diana Rigg) is researching the possibility of assassins using newspaper articles that serve as signals to high-profile murders that have been occurring. Winter shocked to find that businessman Ivan Dragomiloff (Oliver Reed) runs an assassination bureau, an organization that, for a price, will kill anyone in the world, but mostly certain high-profile transgressors. Sonya is a staunch supporter of womans rights and as a way of making a political statement that she can report in her newspaper, she offers to pay Ivan an enormous amount of money if he will have his bureau kill him. Ivan readily agrees thinking that the stunt will be good public relations and a boost to his business. But Lord Bostwick (Telly Savalas) wants control of the business Ivan has established and attempts to make sure that the contract is fulfilled and Ivan taken out of the way. As Winter follows Dragomiloff to report on his eventual demise, they fall in love and she finds herself reversing her feelings about his bureau, but it may be too late to avoid the onslaught of assassins.
They kill Archduke Ferdinand with a bomb hidden in his pork chop or something, I forgot.
EDIT by staff: Let's not share whole movies please.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html)
Iran and radicals in Iraq already planning a retaliation if the US strikes Syria. So is Obama planning on dragging the already stretched thin US military into prolonged sandtrap wars in Syria and Iran and Iraq (again) and possibly Russia with some of it's allies? All for what? Someone (we're still not 100% sure who) killed a couple thousand civilians? To paraphrase Street Fighter's General Bison, do you know what we called it when we killed thousands of civilians in Iraq? "Tuesday"
So still not feeling any authenticity in this "righteous anger" here.
-
Doesn't help Obama's case when word's leaking out that his supporters in congress are being bribed to back him.
-
I would like to bring myself back from a normative discussion to a realist one. Journalists say that Obama fu**ed-up. Why? Because he marked a red line for Syria, the chemical weaponry line, and when Israeli intelligence informed him of the intercepts of Syrian army ordering the use of CW months ago, he did nothing. And now he appeals to the Congress even though his action is unpopular and he can act without consulting Congress. All of this makes him appear incompetent.
You can't just go around, making threats that you don't stand behind. If you mark a red line, it's a red line no matter what. If you fail to take action, your enemies would disregard any further threats. Obama didn't just draw a red line in Syria, he also did in Iran, about their nuclear program. Obama's weakness would encourage Israel to act alone against Iran. Israel did it before, destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. PM Netanyahu said more than once that if the world does not take serious actions to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, Israel will, alone.
That is something USA does not want to happen.
I think the big issue is that no one's sure if this is REALLY a humanitarian intervention, or just another resources grab like Iraq. Plus, with the allies Syria has (Russia being a big one) this whole thing has the possibility to turn into something far worse.
I don't know why everyone turns things like this into a dick waving contest. Oooh, "red lines." Obama should have kept his mouth shut and instead of offering military aid, offered food, water, medical supplies, etc. Our presence there is only going to make the entire situation worse just like it has in Iraq.
But going to back to one of your earlier posts about this generation "not caring," I don't think it's so much that, it's just that we're exhausted. We've been in Iraq for over 10 years. And we've come to find out that that war was started on the basis of a lie. I don't know where you're from, but getting constantly bombarded with coverage about the war, seeing what it does to the troops who are involved in it, and knowing who's profiting from it, it wears you down. The US isn't the only country in the world with a competent military. Let the worthless UN or someone else do some of the heavy lifting for once. That, and every war/conflict being about reaction/counter-reaction. Things like Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Bay of Pigs, etc weren't things that came out of the blue, there was a series of events that lead up to them. We're TOLD they came out of the blue, but it's just public opinion being manipulated. And after being manipulated for so long, you start to tune out. "Oh, gee, another war? Great." For us, more military action is just another day in the US. So if people seem cynical about the whole thing, that's part of the reason why.
Israel needs to shut the fuck up and simmer down too, but that's a whole other thread.
-
What they really need to do is talk with another countries and try to stop importation and exportation to Syria if its not food related, Then they will feel pressure and stop this shit. Also this means that no weapons or ammunition will enter this country, not even disassembled ones.
They export these kind of toys to them and then after they are like "HURR DURR why they are using guns?". They are only child of man like any other country that thinks that war is a solution. Without guns these childs cant do this amount of destruction.
-
What they really need to do is talk with another countries and try to stop importation and exportation to Syria if its not food related, Then they will feel pressure and stop this shit. Also this means that no weapons or ammunition will enter this country, not even disassembled ones.
Good luck saying that to Russia, the biggest weaponry exporter to Syria, which is basically the reason they are the greatest opponent to taking ANY action against their "ally".
Don't get me wrong, the Russians would probably do nothing if Syria is attacked, at least not anything that could effect USA. Putin may be incredibly corrupt and turned applying double standards into a friggin' art, but he's not stupid.
Every time I am amazed by how much of shameless hypocrites the Russian government is. The way they suddenly start crying about international law and about how every military action must be legitimized by the Security Council.
They sure didn't give a damn about the Security Council when they bombed the hell out of Georgia in 2008.
-
Russian blood flow in my veins, so if thats truth I'll feel seriously ashamed.
-
Wasn't Putin former KGB? I liked they made a big deal about how he's handling Syria, but of course he'll be like, "Dudes messed up over there. I want nothing more to do with them; they'll just drag us down. Sever ties with them now."
-
Russian blood flow in my veins, so if thats truth I'll feel seriously ashamed.
Don't, your national ancestry doesn't lay any blame on you for what the government of a country does. Besides it's all just about controlling the region to control the flow of oil. Russia doesn't want America to have complete control of the region so they strengthen countries which resist US influence.
America doesn't want to lose control of oil because it would be devastating to the US economy/dollar. It's basically the same reason that when Russia went to Afghanistan in the 1980s the US sent money and weapons to "freedom fighters" there (we even sent Rambo there in the propaganda-tastic "Rambo III") who we then wound up fighting ourselves in 2001.
PS- http://news.yahoo.com/leaked-iranian-letter-warned-us-syrian-rebels-chemical-184400423.html (http://news.yahoo.com/leaked-iranian-letter-warned-us-syrian-rebels-chemical-184400423.html) I wonder if America would be so against Syria and Iran if they agreed to tie their oil prices to the US dollar?
-
Russian blood flow in my veins, so if thats truth I'll feel seriously ashamed.
I've got Russian blood in me too, however this has nothing to do with the current government or how they're handling things.
-
Can blame Soviet-American conflicts for the Korean and Vietnam Wars too. US was quirky back then, allying with Commies but then going to war with them almost immediately. Russia allied with the US, deceived Japan which culminated in the atomic bombs, which forced the Soviets to back off when the US allied with China and when the US invaded the southern Korean peninsula, which led to Chinese Communist influence spreading across Asia, which led to a Sino-Russo alliance, which led to Sino-American conflicts, which led to the Vietnam and Korean wars and that wonderful era of American peace-time known as the Red Scare.
Front Mission's writers believed 20 years or so from now Russia and the US will still be at war, Japan and other parts of the Pacific will break away from the US, Europe will suffer economic upheaval, and Africa will still be festering in multiple civil wars. Except for the OCU, the rest of their prophecies still seem plausible.
I have US blood in my veins. I'm American!
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.east-west-connect.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FAmerica-Fuck-Yeah-Babe%25281%2529.jpg&hash=78e6b6c131d2644eb90b5d2a2de81e20e02d4fb9)
-
I love everything about that picture except the gun.
I have my own gun. >.>
Giggity.
-
OMG, I saw a couple female customers today that made my gun happy to be Made In USA.
-
Well, now Obama is talking about considering Putin's offer to turn over Syrian weaponry to international control. It seems as though Syria may be willing to accept such a resolution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/obama-putin-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3896333.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/obama-putin-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3896333.html)
Give Obama a second Nobel prize. He and Putin may have found a peaceful resolution to the crisis! The war is over! Hip hip hooray!
...Oh wait.
I forgot that it's still about chemical weapons and not ending the war. Assad is still in power, the civil war is still raging with no end in sight, and that the endless flow of refugees running away in fear of death continues. :P
-
It seens that Obama is watching us, since they tried to do what we said here lol
-
Well, now Obama is talking about considering Putin's offer to turn over Syrian weaponry to international control. It seems as though Syria may be willing to accept such a resolution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/obama-putin-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3896333.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/obama-putin-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3896333.html)
good.
Give Obama a second Nobel prize. He and Putin may have found a peaceful resolution to the crisis! The war is over! Hip hip hooray!
he still has to live up to the first one. I voted him and support him, but even I can see that he only got it as a spur of the moment thing. because he wanted to do all this peace stuff.
...Oh wait.
I forgot that it's still about chemical weapons and not ending the war. Assad is still in power, the civil war is still raging with no end in sight, and that the endless flow of refugees running away in fear of death continues. :P
Too bad. Not our problem. They are not our allies or our friends, and there is a heavy radical Muslim element present. There is no rebel "group". just dissidents. Not everyone in Syria is after Assad's removal. Especially many Christians and other groups which usually fall under Islamic radicals rifle scopes. Why? because when he falls, chaos will ensue, and an Islamic givernment will take hold. Because it is the Muslim Brotherhood which has been behind the entire Arab Spring. To try and take down 'dictators" and replace them with "democratic" governments, who in the end, turn out to be muslim radicals bent on remaking the country as an islamic state.
Look at Egypt. Look at what almost happened. Morsi, (elected not on any kind of vote, but rather a lack thereof) filled the government with islamists and tried to remake the constitution to fit Islamic views. The majority of the country was having none of that however, and managed to get the Military to kick him out as well.
-
Because it is the Muslim Brotherhood which has been behind the entire Arab Spring.
See? This is not true, or inaccurate at best. The masses who demanded the removal of Morsi yelled about how the Muslim Brotherhood stole their revolution, which they did, just like the Communists in Russia and the Ayatollahs in Iran. The masses did not want a Muslim state, they wanted more justice and equality, which is a right for all.
As for Syria, it's a whole different story. Hafez al-Assad's (Bashar's father) takeover of Syria and transformation of it into an Alawite state was, according to how one writer described it, as unlikely as "a Jew becoming the Russian tzar". The Alawites were a religious minority despised and persecuted by must Suns and not even considered Muslim by some. Egypt was just an ultra-corrupt authoritarian state. Syria is an authoritarian state ruled by a religious minority which most most Suns, especially fundamentalists, consider infidels. The Suns who compose the majority of Syria's population were just waiting for an opportunity to rise against the al-Assads, and the "Arab Spring" brought the opportunity.
Have no doubt that Assad would use any means necessary to stay in power. It's not only his own fate, it's the fate of all Syria's Alawites that depends on it. If at the beginning the rebels were just a minority in a small number of cities, the more the war drags on, the more the government's fate is sealed. The rebels would never forgive the ruler who massacres them, and the refugees would support them.
Syria would definitely be driven to chaos if Assad falls; The Alawites could be massacred. This is where foreign humanitarian intervention would be necessary. Iran could step in to defend the regime, but the Ayatollah regime's days are limited too.
You people go out and say that USA's intervention brought Iraq to chaos; No, it was the fall of Saddam that brought Iraq to chaos. Saddam needed to go down eventually, and it was only a matter of time. The chaos is all the fault of authoritarian rulers and religious organizations who shove religious propaganda and hatred in their people's throats. Eventually people would understand warfare and hatred are stupid, but it would take time.
It's all history the way I see it. The middle East could become democratic; At least more democratic than it is today. But before it does it would probably undergo massive bloodshed like Europe had.
-
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg541.imageshack.us%2Fimg541%2F7655%2Fqixm.jpg&hash=ae0ac844b4acdf26a691d295fd3569e6b43cda99)