Syria.
- Thread starter Mutant
- Start date
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
egan. said:
I thought the pictures above were abundantly clear by themselves
Nothing should happen. Get an education about the petrodollar and you will clearly see why this chemical weapons attack is just another false flag. 100,000 people have died over the last few years, and the west could care less, but now a few hundred die (courtesy of Al Qaeda, it seems) then all of a sudden 'action' must be taken.
Americans need to see the games their government keeps playing on their expense; after all, they're the ones mostly paying for it all (in the end). Arming your muslim "friends" with contractors' weapons paid with wealth borrowed from China, that will be used to kill American soldiers.
Btw, don't be surprised if the following suddenly rears it's head:
*edit where did your post go egan?
oh well..
superfreak
Sajid 'Sarj' Masood
I want to wait until the official and final statement from UN experts.
Currently there are two possibilities:
1. The government was dumb enough to really use CW.
2. The rebels used them to get USA involved.
And there are logically valid arguments for both possibilities.
We (the civilized world) can't leave such thing unpunished or there will be more and more atrocities.
But a full scale war to remove a dictatorship is kinda like trying to surgically remove cancerous tissue with a hunting knife...
An assasination would be more like using a scalpel, but it would require all intel agencies and the armed forces to actually do their jobs properly.
I looks like Obama didn't learn anything from the war in Iraq.
Also there is no "good" side in that civil war to ally with.
And then there is Russia and China, no there will be no WW3 but there is no need to worsen the relations by acting like Obama does now.
ArthurD
Member
How about US drone attacks that leads to civillian deaths? We can't leave such things like that unpunished too.
War should not be an option unless a country suffers agression from another. Which is not the case on Syria.
A good alternative would be an economic embargo...
The funny thing is that Obama got the peace nobel... :Smokedev:
Bad example.
They are not WMD.
These deaths are unintentional collateral damage often caused by the fact that the targets choose highly populated areas as their bases to hide behind live shields.
CW are WMD, they are used because the one who gives the orders doesn't care about collateral damage or even wants it to be as big as possible.
In this case the country suffers an aggression from the dictator, at first all the protests were peaceful, then the government decided it was a good idea to start killing the protesters.
To starve the oppressed civilians while the rulers get fat anyway ?
Yes it is funny.
He's Dead, Jim
Member
There are already mountains of economic sanctions on Syria. They achieve absolutely nothing, and, unlike military action, they target the general public and not the regime itself. I'm not advocating for military force, but I'm just saying that if it were that easy, Assad would have left long ago.
Also, again, for the "you're just doing it to get oil!" folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
I agree with Sarah Palin on the issue as it stands with the information I have at the moment.
"Let Allah sort it out."
I have heard that next to nobody in the States wants to invade Syria, but that number doesn't stay that low when you switch over to talking about bombing them.
I am not surprised Americans don't support an invasion. I am a little surprised that nobody was putting the heat on Obama (like Biden did Bush) if he didn't go to congress for approval.
"Let Allah sort it out."
I have heard that next to nobody in the States wants to invade Syria, but that number doesn't stay that low when you switch over to talking about bombing them.
I am not surprised Americans don't support an invasion. I am a little surprised that nobody was putting the heat on Obama (like Biden did Bush) if he didn't go to congress for approval.
Keeping at least a minimum of stability in that region is very important not for the amount of oil produced in the country, but for the price of the oil produced on the whole planet.
The price of oil has a direct and quite strong impact on how fast the world economy grows.
For that selfish reason (and for many other unselfish reasons too ofc) we want peace in the middle east, we don't want any dictators there, we don't want any religious psychos ruling any countries there.
How to make peace quickly in a country that is so deep in civil war it almost drowns because there is no hope for victory for any side ?
Pick one side and help them...
But as i said earlier it is not as simple here because there are no "good guys" in this conflict.
ArthurD
Member
Actually its not a bad example. They are not weapons of mass destruction indeed. But "normal" bombers should not be allowed to "choose" high populated areas. There is no difference when lauching one CW than its equivalent power in normal bombs.
They kill just the same. And the same number of civillians.
There is blood from every kid killed on the hands of US.
Yes. Thats it. No country has the right to interfere on others sovereignty (speaking of International Law).
Historically, people themselves (even with suffering) resolve the situation. Thats what happened at the Russian revolution, the America Independence, and even my country when we ended the dictatorial government.
Speaking of it, US encouraged our dictatorial system that time.
So its just a point of view. If the dictatorial system is bennefical to US, they encourage it. If not, they just attack it.
Just like Iraq.
Speaking of international law, US is the first to break it, depending on its politics.
Another point. You talked about people starving. I quite remember that the embargo at Cuba is still up. Nothing wrong there, just that US is against the communist politic.
People starve there. US does nothing positively to help.
Just as other countries like ethiopia, buthan, albania, etc
International community should act in a positive way (providing education, technology). Not just in a reacting way.
Moreover, there is I new kind of dictatorship that US neglects too. Its a dictatorship in a democratic system. When a country does not provide enough education, and gives exetended propaganda, people are inclined to mantain that regime by vote. Thats what happens in the south america.
Now, speaking of a possible midle east war, Syria is just a perfect location to a military base.
He's Dead, Jim
Member
I tend to agree with most of the things you're saying, but my point was that Syria has almost no oil, so the argument that we're a bunch of imperialist, resource-hungry thugs (despite the fact that we now have more domestic energy resources than almost any country in the world) is ridiculous. It was ridiculous in Iraq, too, but that's another can of worms.
I don't understand what you're saying here. We haven't done anything yet.
Sovereignty presumes that what happens inside your borders stays inside your borders. In Syria's case, the Assad regime has sought help from Iran (violation of sovereignty against the rebels) and Hezbollah (another violation, not to mention spurring violence in Lebanon), and flouted an international arms embargo by using Russian cargo planes to acquire weapons that they're using to massacre civilians. If you want to cite sovereignty, you have to acknowledge that Assad has voided it in every conceivable manner.
The Russian Revolution was not the least bit concerned with sovereignty. Communism was an explicitly internationalist philosophy, which is why Stalin felt just fine about supplying the Spanish Republicans with arms, taking over entire rebel fronts, and murdering competing factions in the war. Russia also tried to spark revolutions in Western Europe during WWI. Soviet history is a litany of violations of sovereignty.
I'll be the first person to wholeheartedly condemn much of U.S. policy in Latin America during the Cold War, but the world isn't black and white anymore. Without the USSR around, the U.S. is really, truly concerned about fostering democratization in countries where we can help out. If we supported every dictatorship conducive to our interests, we would have done in Egypt in 2010 what Vladimir Putin is doing now in Syria: giving him arms and letting him slaughter his own people. Instead, we told him to step down. Iraq was a truly exceptional and bizarre case, and I'd be happy to discuss it in a separate thread, but suffice it to say it's immensely complicated.
There are cases like Uzbekistan, where we regrettably have to give money to awful people to maintain supply routes into Afghanistan. Or our close relationship with Saudi Arabia, which by any measure is an awful dictatorship. But you have to work and cooperate with the countries that exist, not the ones you wish existed. But when democracies appear, as they did in the Arab Spring, we always support them, even when they don't necessarily jive with our interests (see: Mursi government in Egypt).
The embargo on Cuba is stupid, and I don't know anybody other than the Cuban exile community in Florida who actually supports it. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy and the elected representatives with the power to remove the embargo want to get re-elected, and the Cubans in Miami would never, ever let them repeal the embargo.
But to your point about foreign aid, I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. The United States is a gigantic provider of international aid. Other countries give more as a percentage of their GDP, and I'll give you that, but George Bush did more for Africa with the creation of the PEPFAR program than any other country in history. USAID does really great work, and I know quite a few people who work for it.
Ideally, of course we should. We've tried condemning Assad, demanding he leave, providing non-lethal aid to the rebels and the population, sanctions, UN resolutions, and other things. But when we're confronted with Russia's unnecessary, inane obstructionism in the pursuit of realpolitik in the UN Security Council, it doesn't help anyone.
What countries are you talking about? I studied Latin American politics as an undergraduate and that's my area of focus. There are plenty of Latin American countries that don't do enough in the way of providing quality education (Chile and Mexico come to mind, although for different reasons), but I don't think any Latin American countries are "democratic dictatorships." Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Paraguay have incredibly weak institutions and party systems, and their leaders tend to be somewhat authoritarian to varying degrees, but I'd be interested to know what you mean by this.
The only way we could possibly set up a military base in Syria would be by invading and occupying that country. And since we're pulling out of Afghanistan and are already out of Iraq, I don't really see a need. These are the kind of unsubstantiated suspicions about the U.S. that make unbiased discussions of foreign policy extremely difficult.
Jind
Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)
- Mar 7, 2009
- 2,542
- 0
- 36
Exactly! Syria accounts for less than 1/2 of a percentage point of worldwide oil production and currently zero percent of it's distributions since sanctions were applied in 2011. Syria has never been a major player in the global oil markets and if any statement were possibly true as it relates to this potential conflict, it would be that US intervention could further destabilize the already chaotic state the region finds itself in.
You can find the relevant facts of Syria and how it relates to oil production here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-oil-factbox-idUSBRE97Q0JW20130827
Have an opinion but try to be informed with the rationalizations behind them.
Erik Monsonis
Member
drew_drummer
Dancefap
Erik Monsonis
Member
u mad bro?
I'm sure USA intervention will finally bring the peace to the ME and will bring democracy and well-being to Syria.
[/sarcasm]
I'm sure USA intervention will finally bring the peace to the ME and will bring democracy and well-being to Syria.
[/sarcasm]
He's Dead, Jim
Member
Feel free to hate U.S. foreign policy all you want. That's fine! That's what arguing about international politics is about. But merely stating something and cursing a little doesn't mean you understand or have any evidence to support your claims. If you want to talk about Iraq, I'd love to. Start a separate thread if you like.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
yes because there were no other countries involved besides England and the US
not trying to start shit or even get involved but it really annoys me when people who seemingly have no clue about the history of the US cite examples based on the history of the US to try and make / prove a point ... and are wrong
sjcortese
Member
- Jan 22, 2010
- 231
- 0
- 16
Thank you!!
There's been a number of people from the ME that have moved here to the states that I have worked with over the past 22 years. Funny that most of them come here thinking they know more about the US government and our history than we do like SV said above. If we are as bad as they all tell us we are when they get here, then why do they keep coming and STAYING here? Guess we're not that bad after all.... Doesn't take long before they start talking about how much they love the U.S. and how fucked up things are where they left.
Not gone make everyone happy all the time.
Doesn't matter what we do in the ME. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Similar threads
