The Syria Crisis

[ChainLegacy]

I can understand the desire to protect civilians from the chemical attacks, but really, how do you go about doing that? With your bigger guns? All this intervention will accomplish is adding another "foreign" element to the war. I really wish the west would give up on this world police game.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

wasn't it the Brits and Frenchies who started beating the war drum. Now the Brits are saying they are staying home?

They were. If they are not going to follow through, then the US shouldn't either. I rather like the "let Europe be the imperialist overlords again for a bit" tack. If only we could return to the good ole days when Europe cleaned up (And created) these messes and the US kept to themselves, or at least kept a lot more to themselves than they do now.

[Guido]

I sincerely believe it is a farce made up by both the media and politicians in the West that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people.

Those government parties and organizations in the West (mainly USA, always the gringos) are funding the rebels to make Syria fall into their hands due to losing Egypt with Morsi's overthrow.

Whether you want to believe it or not, that's up to you.
I have read a well thought analysis on the causes triggering the upcoming war from the link below.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-war-on-syria/

[kyp275]

The /tinfoils are strong in here :P

But Yea, it's true, there is no chemical attack in Syria, none whatsoever. Actually, there is no civil war either - in fact, Syria is just a myth, it doesn't actually exist. It's just all a ploy by the secret lizard aliens to keep humans enslaved!!!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

The /tinfoils are strong in here :P

Only if you believe there is no way the US government would falsify evidence in order to have an excuse for war.

Are you going to make that claim?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Only if you believe there is no way the US government would falsify evidence in order to have an excuse for war.

Are you going to make that claim?

Of course not, but the whole "You can't prove they can't/won't do it therefore they must have/will" argument is terrible and you know it.

I also can't say for sure you're not a spaghetti monster bend on world domination, does that mean you are one?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Of course not, but the whole "You can't prove they can't/won't do it therefore they must have/will" argument is terrible and you know it.

I also can't say for sure you're not a spaghetti monster bend on world domination, does that mean you are one?

It doesn't matter much if you believe I am actually the holy FSM. But it does matter if you are going to break down my door and cut my head off. There are room to argue about who used chemical weapons, but it matter when you are suggesting lobbing explosives into a city with the explicit aim of blowing things up.

Now launching an explosive projectile into a city is normally called "terrorism", but when America is doing it it is called pre-emptive action. To make it worse, we know the cruise missile will do nothing; the aim is to scare Assad, but with the absolute aim of NOT overthrowing him in the process. So why throw a missile at him at all?

And to say that to do nothing would cause the proliferation of Chemical Weapon use... Should we say America has legitimised torture because the rest of the world didn't invade Washington DC?

[kyp275]

Yes, because we launch cruise missiles randomly while blindfolded just to make things more exciting.

And what does the rest of your post have to do with what I said? I'm pretty sure I didn't argue for or against intervention or the merit of one, but was merely pointing out the lulz-logic that some seems to be using here.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Yes, because we launch cruise missiles randomly while blindfolded just to make things more exciting.

And what does the rest of your post have to do with what I said? I'm pretty sure I didn't argue for or against intervention or the merit of one, but was merely pointing out the lulz-logic that some seems to be using here.

Then, pray tell, where would you like the Cruise missiles to land? Keeping in mind that you are trying to simultaneously send a warning to Assad, yet not risk him being overthrown. Would you like to aim for a national monument, perhaps?

My point stands, the link between chemical weapons and military action justification is shaky. Right now the mission plan is actually harder than outright conquest. At least with a conquest, you can just carpet bomb the country.

[Badkarma 1]

Why don't we let the UN figure that out! They're always so good about that sort of thing.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Then, pray tell, where would you like the Cruise missiles to land? Keeping in mind that you are trying to simultaneously send a warning to Assad, yet not risk him being overthrown. Would you like to aim for a national monument, perhaps.

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are actually military targets, such as the rockets used to launch those weapons.

The fact that you seems serious about cruise missiles being fired randomly into cities is mind boggling. Not only would such action serve no purpose, it's also the completely wrong weapon platform to use. They are precision strike weapons, not bombs.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by kyp275

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are actually military targets, such as the rockets used to launch those weapons.

The fact that you seems serious about cruise missiles being fired randomly into cities is mind boggling. Not only would such action serve no purpose, it's also the completely wrong weapon platform to use. They are precision strike weapons, not bombs.

Hmm, so there are still some people who buy the "surgical strike" spin.
Also, nowadays most bombs are precision strike weapons as well. The thing is "precision strike weapons" still have a record of "collateral damage", which has been shown to translate into the deaths of civilians, men, women, eldrely and children by the hundred.

Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force
Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war

Notice that Predator drones and their hundreds of civilian casualties are also "precision strike weapons".

Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

[Badkarma 1]

Well said! Seems ol Zippy is going down the same path as Bush don't it?
As for the cruise missiles, we could always just carpet bomb them.

Here's the thing, Obama has to save face for his "Red Line" promise and according to the spin doctors over at CNN if "we" don't strike we'll be seen as "paper lions".
And thanks for voting him back in, ya did a real good job.
Have a great Labor Day weekend! Dale

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Guido

Those government parties and organizations in the West (mainly USA, always the gringos) are funding the rebels to make Syria fall into their hands due to losing Egypt with Morsi's overthrow.

Uh, no. The Brotherhood never warmed up to the West (and vice versa). Dear Freedomland USA has always been more comfortable with military dictators than popular movements of any shades, and especially of the Islamist shade. The era of independent-minded Nasserist Arab nationalism has long ended -- leaving behind only sickening corpses of Nasserist military dictatorships. Egypt's military and the USA are natural allies.

Remember the recently released former dictator Mubarak? He was a very long time ally of the USA.

The only reasons the US foreign establishment doesn't cozy up right away with the new order after the brief Spring are because:
A) The USA still pays lip service to democracy. It's kind of a diplomatic routine.
B) Domestically, Obama's liberal base are already enraged by the NSA controversy (or alternatively show themselves to be cowardly bootlickers-of-power in liberal guise) and he still sort of need our support come 2014.
C) It's still not clear if the Brotherhood won't successfully send Egypt into civil war or even return to power (unlikely).

If anything, the Brotherhood's defeat in Egypt dramatically strengthened Assad's position. It may be true that the Americans are influenced to intervene now because of the Brotherhood's fall, but if so, it is only because of this reason. Having foresworn Assad's survival as the Syrian leader, America cannot back down and let the Syrian government triumph over the rebels.

What I think Obama wants the most is a negotiated solution of some kind that would save face for the US without allowing either Assad to triumph and remain a lifelong US enemy, or the increasingly dominant Islamist factions among the rebels to take over.

With regards to the rebels, in a sense I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War. Then, men of liberty rallied in defense of the Republic against the fascist coup, and they fought eagerly alongside communists and other radical forces. Unfortunately, in such an environment, the extremists tend to win over the moderates, and the communists ruthlessly purged the republican supporters among the Republic's ranks and took over. They lost of the civil war, of course, but even if the Republican side win, the democracy would not have returned.

Such is the tragedy of history.

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

And thanks for voting him back in, ya did a real good job.

Do you expect better of the empty suit puppet that was Romney? Obama's betrayal hit people like me hard, but it was not like we had a true progressive choice to rally to (...don't say Ron Paul. Don't.)

[Ridwan]

Eight things to consider before intervening in Syria

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Do you expect better of the empty suit puppet that was Romney? Obama's betrayal hit people like me hard, but it was not like we had a true progressive choice to rally to (...don't say Ron Paul. Don't.)

Agreed. A lot of the "conservatives" seemingly love to blame the people who voted for Obama, but it's laughable to think that Romney would have handled this any differently. Or McCain, for that matter - the guy already ran over to Syria and has been trying to push us into intervening. Republicans who are blaming Obama are right to do so, but before they start trashing people who voted Democrat they ought to take a hard look in the mirror. The candidates that "their" political party fielded wouldn't be doing anything differently, I'm sure.

Instead of insulting voters from the other party, perhaps it's time to recognize that "we the people" need to get our representatives under control. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, it doesn't seem like your representatives or their party leaders care for your opinion or well-being.

[Tom Bombadil]

I am surprised that France called for action in Syria. So what's in it for France? Anyone want to elaborate?

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I am surprised that France called for action in Syria. So what's in it for France? Anyone want to elaborate?

Potato Head (François Hollande, I mean) is trying to boost his popularity rates. I say that if he feels so good with the momentum following the intervention in Mali, the French forces should have a go alone until we have harder evidence on who launched those CWs.

However, if hard evidence there is, it's better to make it public ASAP.

[ganbaru]

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’sUse of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013
http://ja.scribd.com/doc/164272259/U...August-21-2013

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks on Syria on Aug. 30
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...washingtonpost

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

(...don't say Ron Paul. Don't.)

Say what you will about Ron Paul, he obviously isn't a progressive in any traditional sense, but he wouldn't be bringing us into any war in Syria.

[Ithekro]

Syria was a former French possession, so there may be interests there still.