Syria.
- Thread starter Mutant
- Start date
So you don't have anything intelligent to say about what happened today ?
I started the topic because i want to know what US citizens (who make the majority on this forum) think about it.
http://edition.cnn.com/
I started the topic because i want to know what US citizens (who make the majority on this forum) think about it.
http://edition.cnn.com/
Nuno Filipe
You talkin' to me?
Imagine:
A bunch of guys discuss some usual random bullshit in a dark pub filled with smoke and beer/piss stench.
One suddenly raises a new topic by saying just one word and waits for any and all interesting thoughts with an expression that can only be translated to "?" in text.
---
If you don't know the context, you are not very current with some of the most important things that are happening on this planet right now.
Erik Monsonis
Member
Governments think we eat all the bullshit they throw at us through the mainstream media. Chemical weapons my ass. Another excuse to invade a middle eastern country strategically located.
Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
USA really doesn't like the neighbors of Turkey it seems.
But on a more related note:
Weapons of mass destruction...again?...seriously?
Plus I think it's really interesting how "selective" they shove freedom up other peoples ass.
But on a more related note:
Weapons of mass destruction...again?...seriously?
Plus I think it's really interesting how "selective" they shove freedom up other peoples ass.
Erik Monsonis
Member
Jind
Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)
- Mar 7, 2009
- 2,542
- 0
- 36
Starting a conversation with one word and a question mark is not really the most effective way to garner a response.
If your goal as you state in another post of the thread was:
Why not say that instead of:
?
As one of the "US citizens" of this forum I'll simply state my less than formed opinion in the word:
Conflicted!
I could play devils advocate with myself and argue the finer points of both sides of my thought process on it - inject a little of my war weary American brain at odds with the side of me that says certain atrocities require repercussions.
I could get wordy with my concerns that any reaction could just ratchet up the atrocities in this civil war. Or, I could argue that if left un-checked, if no response was offered, it's just tacit approval that the idea that "all's fair in love and war" really is the case and Assad might as well gas the opposition into dust.
But then again I tend to be a realist when it comes to war and generally hate the idea that the act of warfare can somehow be "sanitized", somehow "surgical". If you really think war can be "civilized", that only those tasked with the fighting will decide the victor, will do all the dying, you've really not been paying attention to history as a general rule. Very few wars have been won with just the soldiers doing the dying.
Does knowing that civilian casualties occur in war make certain atrocities any less atrocious? Nope. It's with all these thoughts (only a few from the many) that I arrive at a simple:
Conflicted!
So now that I've offered some sort of answer - how about you add your opinion instead of just a:
Where do you fall on the issue? Voicing an opinion is a sure fire way of garnering a response.
People tend to need something to agree or disagree with to start up a conversation.
He's Dead, Jim
Member
Well, I'm an international relations graduate student and an American, so I'll bite.
The United States has no compelling security interest in Syria. If Assad stays in power, he will be hostile to the U.S. and, because of the leverage Iran has gained in this war, it will have more influence. Same with Hezbollah. But that's not really enough to justify a military strike, in my opinion.
Furthermore, I don't think the difference between being gassed to death and being blown up by a SCUD missile is that tremendous. People die and there is massive suffering either way. But the idea that chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction is a global norm. We didn't make it up as a pretext to invade. We've done essentially nothing for 2 years because we have no interest in getting involved. Obama explicitly said, "We won't do anything unless Assad uses chemical weapons," and he did precisely that.
And for you guys who think we're making it up, the numbers vary, but only around 9% of Americans want to intervene in Syria. I'm sure the UN tissue samples will back it up in a couple of days, but the regime definitely used sarin or VX or some other nerve agent.
So, for my part, I don't think intervention is necessary. But for all you "herpderp the U.S. is shoving freedom up peoples' assholes" Europeans, being the United States is difficult. African countries want us to help them out with development and civil conflict, Europe wants us to intervene in Syria when they don't want to, everyone in the Middle East hates us, and Russia is screwing with us. And meanwhile, if we don't step in to show the world that you can't gas 1,000 of your own people, nobody else will, especially not Europe, at least for the most part.
And one last point. Remember Libya? Few people are complaining about that bombing campaign in hindsight, and the Libyans love us because NATO intervened.
tl;dr it's difficult, and countries that want us to intervene but won't commit military assets, money, time, or diplomatic pressure need to re-evaluate their strategic priorities if they really want to shape the world to their liking.
The United States has no compelling security interest in Syria. If Assad stays in power, he will be hostile to the U.S. and, because of the leverage Iran has gained in this war, it will have more influence. Same with Hezbollah. But that's not really enough to justify a military strike, in my opinion.
Furthermore, I don't think the difference between being gassed to death and being blown up by a SCUD missile is that tremendous. People die and there is massive suffering either way. But the idea that chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction is a global norm. We didn't make it up as a pretext to invade. We've done essentially nothing for 2 years because we have no interest in getting involved. Obama explicitly said, "We won't do anything unless Assad uses chemical weapons," and he did precisely that.
And for you guys who think we're making it up, the numbers vary, but only around 9% of Americans want to intervene in Syria. I'm sure the UN tissue samples will back it up in a couple of days, but the regime definitely used sarin or VX or some other nerve agent.
So, for my part, I don't think intervention is necessary. But for all you "herpderp the U.S. is shoving freedom up peoples' assholes" Europeans, being the United States is difficult. African countries want us to help them out with development and civil conflict, Europe wants us to intervene in Syria when they don't want to, everyone in the Middle East hates us, and Russia is screwing with us. And meanwhile, if we don't step in to show the world that you can't gas 1,000 of your own people, nobody else will, especially not Europe, at least for the most part.
And one last point. Remember Libya? Few people are complaining about that bombing campaign in hindsight, and the Libyans love us because NATO intervened.
tl;dr it's difficult, and countries that want us to intervene but won't commit military assets, money, time, or diplomatic pressure need to re-evaluate their strategic priorities if they really want to shape the world to their liking.
Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
No wonder your international relations aren't so good, if people like you are the graduates in that field.
herpderp.
herpderp.
He's Dead, Jim
Member
Thanks for the ad hominem attack! What's your sophisticated analytic take on the situation? I wasn't the one who said we were shoving freedom up countries' asses; I was responding to that argument. It doesn't really say anything about the complexity of the situation, the millions of people who want us to intervene and the millions who don't, or the willingness and ability of other countries to force political or military solutions to civil conflicts.
I should add one thing, and then I'll shut up: Obama pulled a David Cameron and sought authorization from Congress. I don't know whether our Congress will approve anything, so we might end up like the UK. If that happens, I suspect a lot of predominantly Sunni Arab countries will say we've abdicated our responsibilities to help the victims and rebels in Syria, and liberal institutionalists and humanitarian interventionists will say we're letting hundreds of thousands more die. So that's the line we're treading.
egan.
daylightdies.com
I'm not sure what was objectionable about his response TBH. 90% of US citizens don't want another war. We don't want another Iraq or Afghanistan or Iraq (again) on our hands. At the same time none of us wants to sit idle and let another Darfur happen.
Maybe it's getting bad info but I haven't seen any credible info that contradicts the basic facts.
Personally I want the UN to actually take a meaningful action here and to avoid war.
I was talking about the context of the question you dumbass. I'm very aware of the situation, there are billions of questions that can be asked about the topic. You didn't provide a single idea about it until later, just saying it was a dumb way to open a thread.
Shit's never going to be easy. And this anti-America thing will just keep on rolling no matter what. I'm war-weary of this endless shit going on in the ME, these conflicts are just getting old like a naggy wife with a kitchen knife. It sucks for these people to have such shitty "leaders" over there but I'm not really into the idea of Team America rushing in to save the day any more, it just makes the US look bad in the long run (it already has and now it's nigh impossible to turn that sentiment around)...rock and a hard place.
Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
Yeah well, I can give that one right back to you, cause I strongly felt like "herpderp the U.S. is shoving freedom up peoples' assholes" was aimed towards me.
Me then noticing that attacking someone on a personal level (inclining he is handicapped mentally) might not be a good way to work in the field you mentioned, is more of an observation than a personal attack IMO.
My statement wasn't worded pretty, I'll admit that tho.
But after reading a personal attack I wasn't really in the mood to quote your post and type out every thought on your arguments.
Maybe I'm just a little bit too bitter at the moment from too much discussing these kind of topics over beer lately.
USA has placed itself in a really strange position throughout history,
but if it really was for humanitary reasons (only) you'd have to be spread across the globe a lot more. So thinking it is for "noble" reasons only is pretty naive IMO.
But USA for sure isn't the only bad boy around, just the one who get's noticed the most with the "we'll step in and save the day" attitude. And statements like "if we don't step in to show the world that you can't gas 1,000 of your own people, nobody else will, especially not Europe, at least for the most part." is what makes me think such a thing, cause from the general perception I have, this seems to be the attitude that gets transmitted to most people through your media.
Bottom line is, yeah it is complicated.
Non-violently replacing a violent regime AND ensuring that the new leaders aren't going to cause the same problems again, awesome task.
Similar threads
