Oh, and don't forget that the Russians would, in all likelihood, lose their only Mediterranean base as well as a major trading partner if the rebels win. They will not be happy, to say the least, and work even harder to stymie our efforts in every other part of the globe
I'm flabbergasted at the consistent inep ude of our foreign policy. There is nobody who has any long term goals in mind...And when I say long term, I mean 20+ years down the road. Everything is a knee-jerk reaction. That goes for republicans, the Obama administration, and the state department
imo, the Turkish army is highly competent and can keep things contained to the border area. They have decades of experience fighting the Kurds. More dangerous would be the humanitarian situation concerning refugees pouring out of Syria after the Sunnis take over.
did you just try to say that America has some sort of moral high ground to stand on here, you ing idiot?
http://web.archive.org/web/201301292...ame-Assad.html
Last edited by Bill_Brasky; 08-27-2013 at 11:30 AM.
Sure it it breaks out at the border, but imagine if they smuggle chemical weapons in Turkey and breaks out in Istanbul. Unlikely, sure, but if we're discussing worst case scenarios, i can think of few worse than just more unstable Iraq...
"If we fell out, and didn't take a moral stand-"
Holy ! You chauvinist Super Patriots are 100% lost in the American-mythical fog.
Oh yeah, of course that would be worse. I'm trying to keep it fairly reasonable, though
Seriously Nono?
First off, the "they can leave" argument is terrible. Even assuming your local dictator/rebels/global super power is going to give fair warning and your own country's borders as well as neighboring countries' borders will remain open, it is extremely difficult to leave. Its not a matter of just booking a flight and leaving. Most of the people you are talking about are so poor that they would literally have to walk out of their country and leave the only things they have (iden y, place, family and friends) to be treated like wherever they ended up. Its not impossible to do and it happens, but if it were that easy then everyone would "just leave" till they found a place to be happy and live in peace right? Please. Dont be naive.
And your countless cycles? What the are you talking about? Be specific. Are you really saying that dictatorship in Argentina and 2001 default and social unrest are part of the same cycle? I'm pretty sure they are quite different phenomenons, even if there are connections. What was the cycle in Chile pre 1973? AFAIK it was over a hundred years of stable democracy, what suddenly changed? You do realize that of the conflicts you listed, the US played a critical role in the majority of them? And if you are going to list Venezuela as a country with internal fighting alongside several countries that went through actual civil war, why shouldnt I list the US too? Are there no protests in the US? no police crackdowns to defend unpopular govt decisions, no economic turmoil provoking clashes between state and populace? No domestic terrorism and no questionable elections? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you misspoke or I misunderstood but from here what you wrote reeks of 1st world naivete and 3rd world brown nosing.
The reason the US gov is more stable than Egypt/Syria/Chile/Yugoslavia is the same reason that the Chinese gov is more stable than Argentina/Iraq/Spain/Ireland. That is because they have thousands of times the resources as their counterparts and because their populations have for the most part enjoyed growth and well-being the others have not. It also helps that they dont have foreign super powers inciting divisions for their own political/economic gain the way the others do.
I agree with the post above. This is a tribal area. They don't really have a culture of just leaving like that
I'm not talking about nation-building. I agree that we have hurt the future of the next generations but that's not just from defense spending.The debt burden for the money that pays these nation-building expeditions is coming off those people, so they're definitely affected. The question then becomes why not use that money in the US instead? To me, it's a matter of economics, not balls.
I agree that we shouldn't butt our heads in every conflict. We shouldn't be some older kid refereeing little kids fighting. But the use of chemical weapons should not be allowed. We should make a stand. Every dictator should know that genocide and wmd's are unacceptable.I agree with the first part, the "moral stand" part, not so much. Countries go through internal fighting all the time, especially dictatorships. In the past 30 years, there's countless dictatorship-rebels/government-guerrilla cycles. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, former Yugoslavia, Spain, Ireland, Russia, Iraq, Egypt, now Syria (just off the top of my head). Some eventually settle down, some flare up again. America is exceptional in this aspect. You probably have to go back to the American Civil War.
Actually, AQIZ created the civil war for instability. But I don't think we should take a vote of the public before we decide if we should help. Yes (even though your example is so generalized it's hard to take serious) there is collateral damage. That is the military. Regardless of what politicians want us to be, we are soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. Not police, humanitarian workers, or social counselors. The military's main job is to destroy stuff. IMO we are the best. But once again I'm not talking about rescuing the Syrians from Assad. I'm talking about taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons. 1. To keep other Syrians from dieing from this and 2. Serve as a deterrent to other dictators.
Then there's Iraq to look back and remember what that "moral stand" ended up looking like. Our intervention eventually triggered a massive ethnic cleansing, still ongoing. Not to mention that there's little sympathy for the US in that region, the whole "winning hearts and minds" giving candy to kids after leveling their villages isn't really convincing. Bottom line, chemical weapons or not, they don't want us there. I don't see how Syria is any different in that aspect.
I'm not trying to presume that this is an easy open and shut case. But I am now siding with the side who thinks something should be done.
that's not my take
No Boots on the gound. Good.
That article cites infowars.
All those bombs we have aren't going to blow themselves up dammit. It's the moral thing to do.
So does Drudge?
Why do we want in this?
Who wanted this and how was this pre-scripted? I know the military was told to be ready but you are saying we wanted or even produced a massive chemical attack? I am not buying this much stupidity on our part.
Afghanistan and Iraq are easy explanations. This one is not.
And after Libya we were just waiting to make Syria a mess?
This makes the situation in Israel even more tenuous.
At least Israel knew who to deal with when Assad had full control.
US and it's puppets are in complete denial mode and lying to their citizens on a daily basis. They say they are absolutely convinced Syria govt used Chems last week and totally disregarding the fact that in March or this year it was the rebels who used the Chems first and to cover it up massacred hundreds of unarmed Assad loyalists:
the proof is there. anyone who believes US and it's puppets is acting on good faith of Syrians needs to be checked into the nearest mental hospital.
good going Obama. You are not only helping a mostly foreign force invading Syria but also mostly members of Al Qaeda.
US and it's puppets are in complete denial mode and lying to their citizens on a daily basis. They say they are absolutely convinced Syria govt used Chems last week and totally disregarding the fact that in March or this year it was the rebels who used the Chems first and to cover it up massacred hundreds of unarmed Assad loyalists:
the proof is there. anyone who believes US and it's puppets is acting on good faith of Syrians needs to be checked into the nearest mental hospital.
good going Obama. You are not only helping a mostly foreign force invading Syria but also mostly members of Al Qaeda.
This is BS based on what I deem the most reliable sources.
The rebels used gas and covered it up? I admit I rely on the large news from the West. I believe them to be least likely to be bullied by the govt., yet not some little conspiracy outlets trying to gain the attention of people like you who automatically dismiss anything and everything from the US.
So where do you go for news?
And the bolded has not flown over the experts heads if you mentioned it.
- A chemical attack happened in Khan Al-Assal before it was overrun by rebels
- Syria and Russia were the first to report this attack and asked UN for inspections
- UN delayed the inspections while UK and France drafted a request to not only see this site, but unlimited access to all of Syria, knowing Syria would refuse. (delay tactic)
- Meanwhile rebels execute hundred+ in Khan Al-Assal and destroy any evidence
feel free to draw your own conclusions. that is what the board is for
Maybe.
I especially have a problem with Obomba saying "we don't need inspectors to confirm our allegation."
so if you knew for a fact your neighbor was raping his 5 yr old daughter (after seeing him sodomize her in the backyard) you turn around go in your house and close the blinds? With Power comes responsibility.... a wel lthought out and measured response...
I agree with your stan lee quote.
So I take it you are heading to Syria to help fight?
So arming and deploying your son to your neighbor's house to impose justice is a better idea? You would be violating countless laws and would be acting as judge and jury. What would be especially troubling once the authorities seize and try you for the death of the neighbor is them finding out the fact that the same neighbor is one you publicly have despised and is one of the few that stands against you ruling the entire neighborhood. In the real world, you'd be lucky if you get anything less than a life sentence for those crimes.
The US employs a paid VOLUNTEER standing army dude. I get you're not for intervention but ^ is idiotic.
I realize there's people that won't leave no matter what happens, but those people assume the risk of living in a country with a dictator that has chemical weapons. The reality is that once a full blown war starts, a lot of these same people end up moving anyways, because their places are blown to bits. Take a look at the displaced on almost any armed conflict.
I'm talking about guerrillas, coups, etc. Some countries eventually settle down, some do not. Let me be more specific about the countries I listed:
Argentina - Dictatorship ends after the failed Falklands war. There were at least two military coup attempts after that (Rico, Seineldin, et all).
Chile - After Pinochet finally stepped down, Chile battled with guerrillas well into the mid-90's (FPMR, MJL, etc)
Colombia - Constant struggle with FARC, still ongoing.
Venezuela - Chavez eventually won the presidency democratically, but he first attempted to do so through a military coup, which failed.
Yugoslavia - Yugoslav Wars
Spain - Had to deal with guerrilla/separatist ETA
Ireland - Dealing with all the splinter groups from the old IRA (PIRA, CIRA, etc). Still ongoing.
Russia - Chechnya, etc
Iraq - There were always shia-sunni tensions, but the removal of Saddam escalated it. Still ongoing.
Egypt - This is recent enough, shouldn't need to add much. Still ongoing.
I don't dispute there was US involvement in one or more of the above.
I'm not comparing. I'm simply stating this kinda of stuff is fairly common.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
