Results 81 to 100 of 271
Thread: Syrian Civil War
30-08-2013, 03:07 PM #81
30-08-2013, 05:17 PM #82
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
30-08-2013, 05:38 PM #83
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
No point in asking the world to stop any war - all we're good at is STARTING them...
We've not actually stopped a war since 1945 and - arguably - what stopping we did back then was either massively brutal (dropping nukes on Japan) or really more a case of the opposition over-stretching itself anyway.
Since then we've had things like the Korean War (still actually ongoing), the Vietnam War (what a success that was), the Iran/Iraq War (started by, funded by and supplied - including chemical weapons - by the USA) - and so on...
I believe the people who are for military intervention are the same idiots who believe all that 'guided bombing' and 'tactical strike' bullshit they see on the TV. None of that exists - bombs kill anything they go near and never land where you want - you cannot bomb 'down a chimney' and bullets don't check their target is a badguy before puncturing them.
Reality is that any military action will just be a different way of killing civilians with a few 'friendly fire' incidents added for good measure - it's all driven by people who profit from it or watch too many fucking movies.
Or I suppose it could become like the Balkans where we simply help sweep shit under the carpet and ignore the atrocities entirely - that went swimmingly...
Last edited by trjp; 30-08-2013 at 05:43 PM.
30-08-2013, 11:50 PM #84
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
31-08-2013, 12:44 AM #85
In a case like Syria where nobody sane is going to use nukes or massive force, diplomacy is laughable. It's like telling North Korea not to test bombs or else - what are you going to do, get involved in a costly war to invade for what purpose again? There won't be any peaceful solution without the threat of force with an apparent willingness to use it. And since Syria is just going to do whatever it damn well pleases (as any independent state can do) you're not going to achieve anything.
But you're right - any sort of military intervention would be costly and pointless unless you just launch missiles like blindly throwing darts at a dartboard. Both sides are already doing a decent job at wiping each other out, I'd sooner just leave them alone, really from an international political perspective what difference does it make?
Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
01-09-2013, 03:43 PM #86
After signaling he was on the verge of delivering a strike against Syria, Obama made a last-minute decision Friday evening to seek congressional authorization before any military action, senior administration officials told reporters Saturday.
01-09-2013, 04:06 PM #87
01-09-2013, 04:18 PM #88
Good they should probably, to messy to get involved even with missiles and planes. Were quick to pull the trigger but we are not quick to help the people that need to get in there for medical reasons.
01-09-2013, 05:07 PM #89
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
This would be one of the reasons there is a line on chemical weapons.
When the doctors trying to help people end up dying from exposure, we have reached another level of horror. That is why there is a special rule about this kind of thing.
Last edited by Misnomer; 01-09-2013 at 05:10 PM.
01-09-2013, 07:41 PM #90
Yeah but even if there was a line in the sand what the hell could we do really without causing even more problems. Yes its evil, yes I don't agree with it but to be honest we should try to help as many victims as possible and just let them kill themselves.
02-09-2013, 04:29 AM #91Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
03-09-2013, 04:04 PM #92
I wonder if it would ever be possible to create "safe zones". So just mark out a big area (say a city), then send in UN peacekeepers to occupy it. Civilians are free to enter but anyone coming near it with a gun gets shot, then just wait out the rest of the conflict.
There are many problems with this, the main being that it sounds like it'd rapidly get overcrowded and turn into a concentration camp. But some doctrine like that thought out by our military leaders instead of just bombing the shit out of everything.
Also I'm sure I've played that as a level in a strategy game. Advance Wars Dark Conflict maybe.
03-09-2013, 04:26 PM #93
03-09-2013, 04:38 PM #94
03-09-2013, 06:11 PM #95
03-09-2013, 07:27 PM #96
05-09-2013, 08:22 AM #97
05-09-2013, 03:02 PM #98
05-09-2013, 04:55 PM #99
I am very saddened by this entire conflict.
100,000 people have died in civil war conflict.
Only the use of chemical weapons, however dire that is, killing up to 1000 people, maybe as little as 150 people, causes need for intervention?
And I have even more problem with the fact that we as in USA are trying to "balance the power of the conflict" by launching missiles at Assad?
What good is that going to do? Prolong the conflict so the rebels and Syrian government can have a "more fair fight?" Why???
This is nothing more than the world's next Satellite war. Except it's not communist versus democracy anymore. It is Shia vs Sunni muslims.
Sunni muslims being dominant/in power in Iraq and Saudia Arabia. Who are "allies to US." Even though Saudis are clearly a dictatorship.
Shia muslims being dominant in Iran and Syria. And of course since Iran is USA and Israel's almight enemy... so we must do everything possible to destroy Syria as much as possible too. We are now sponsoring sectarian violence as Western nations.
We should've done everything to stop this conflict the minute it started: meaning do NOT supply weapons to the terrorists and Al Qaeda invading Syria. We should have sought rapid resolution of the war, to STOP fighting, no matter who was participating. Whatever means to end the war, if that meant bombing the rebels, who are clearly not of Syrian descent for the most part, we should've done that.
I do not believe for a second we know who used chemical weapons. I don't even believe we know for certain chemical weapons were used. And if chemical weapons were used, and USA truly knew who used them, we would've seen all their evidence already. USA has lost all it's credibility since a long time ago.
USA says they will treat chemical weapons as a red line? What did US army do to Vietnam? They poisoned millions of people and led to 400,000 deaths and 500,000 birth deformities and stillbirths by using DDT, a chemical weapon. Napalm is another chemical weapon that is illegal, except USA used it. And this is after the chemical weapons conventions post WW2.
Who else used chemical weapons? Oh yea, Iraq used them against their OWN people. And who helped Iraq get them? USA, as per wikileaks scandals.
And Iraq also used chemical weapons during the Iran and Iraq war: too bad we were allied with Iraq and had no intention of doing anything about it.
If there were instances of chemical weapons used, it should never have been the primary impetus for getting involved. The death of 100,000 civilians (notice how the media never reports that rebels die, only civilians)... no..... 1 or 10 civilians... should have been the primary impetus for getting involved.
The story of this conflict and the interest in getting militarily involved, and the idiocy of supplying Al Qaeda and all these militant groups (who are definitely Muslim extremists and not at all secular), is filled with so much BS hypocrisy it is unbelievable.
And yet still we have idiots, sadly whom I once respected, like Obama and Nancy Pelosi using conversations with 5 year old granddaughters trying to justify the war?
USA and Western democracies are not on the right side of this war, because there is no right side. Intervention should have been peacekeeping to stop fighting AT ALL from happening. That would have been humanitarian aid and totally justifiable, but the greedbags of Obama and David Cameron are too much filled with ego to admit what they are doing is incredibly stupid.
At least UK politicians saw through the bullshit, but unfortunately we can't say the same about USA, the land of war mongerers.
05-09-2013, 11:11 PM #100
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
Posts like yours are incredibly frustrating to me, because they seem to be the consensus of popular opinion, but are so full of internal contradictions that it is a meaningless rant.
1. It is horrible that people are dying and there should have been peace.
How would you have made that peace? We have embargoed Syria we have called for them to go to Geneva (not just Assad said no, the rebels have no clue who is in charge and can't agree who would show up to negotiate).
Are you claiming that an Army of people with blue helmets should have been sent in. When has that ever worked? Oh and Russia and China would have blocked it anyway.
2. 100,000 people died, 1,500 in a chemical weapons attack doesn't matter.
This is a category of weapons that the world has agreed upon as particularly horrible. WE KNOW what they do to people and how that makes it impossible to provide first response.
This type of chemical weapon (sarin if that is correct) is a weapon of mass destruction the way the term is meant to be used. I wonder how people like you would react to a dirty bomb nuke or a backpack nuke that kills 10,000. Barely anything compared to 100,000 right? No response necessary?
The game of relatives is easy to play with casualty numbers. It doesn't actually make the decisions any better, but it lets the people who could have done something sleep at night when they don't.
3. Just send humanitarian aid.
And how do you get that in btw? You dock at Syrian ports and drive aid to the rebels? Or you deliver it to the regime because they control the ports? Or are you making use of the U.S. air force to air drop it in behind the Syrian SAM batteries?
You can't just show up and say "We're here to do good things, now let us get to work." This has been shown countless times and the most dramatic was Somalia.
4. U.S. should stop being the world's police and are hypocrites
There are maybe 5 countries that could do anything about this without invading Syria. Two of them are China and Russia. One is the UK (who only marginally could have done anything). Basically if anyone was going to do anything it is going to be the U.S.
Remember, without the U.S. even the British and French couldn't bomb in Libya on cloudy days. The French did quite a job in Mali, but it required boots on the ground. If the world actually wants something like a limited strike on Syrian military capabilities as punishment for violating a norm, the U.S. is pretty much the only one going to do it.
So you are in a situation where you are saying "Well the U.S. can't do anything because they made mistakes in the past so they must let others make mistakes," despite the international community actually wanting these rules to be enforced.
To me, people who write rants like this are really just asking themselves the question: Am I okay with the small scale use of chemical weapons? And answer the question yes and giving their excuses.
If your answer is no, but your only solution is that we should all just get along and hand out band aids after the sarin clears then what the world will do to itself might shock you in the coming years.
Peace doesn't just happen. MLK Jr. is a great role model, but don't forget it took 31,000 national guard soldiers to integrate Ole Miss.
Last edited by Misnomer; 05-09-2013 at 11:14 PM.