Syria: This is not a revolution. Stop this nonsense.

[Regulus]

[quote="TheBlackCatCrossing"][quote="DGFone"]I was going to write a wall of text critical of Woeler's above post, but all I can really say is this:

Oh jeez...[/quote]

That's because college kids think that they know everything when they take Poli Sci or Soc 101, doncha know? [/quote]

Pfft. Of course I know everything, silly.

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="Azdgari"]Is that based on some data that you could provide, Nicholas? Especially considering that cruise missile attacks would A) be limited and B) Exclusively target Assad regime targets. In other words... now = civilian targets. US attack = military targets. So if by 'Syrian' you mean 'Syrian civilians', then there's absolutely no question about which course of action is more humane.[/quote]


Well I can conclude the following:
A. Innocent civilians may even be close to the ''military'' targets.
B. Intervension may empower radical jihadists.
C. It may also trigger a much bigger war with even more civilian casualties (obviously).
D. The U.S tends to be quite clumsy with aiming their missiles, so the missiles might not even hit the targets at all.

[Azdgari]

If you care so much about civilians why are you proposing that the world ignore the wildly inhumane chemical mass murder of 1500 of them?

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="Azdgari"]If you care so much about civilians why are you proposing that the world ignore the wildly inhumane chemical mass murder of 1500 of them?[/quote]

Because there's no solid evidence that the Assad regime is behind the chemical attack... In fact the Assad regime even wrote a letter to the United Nations to protect them against America's aggression. Besides, Assad would totally accomplish nothing with a random chemical attack lol. Assad is the only protection for the ''normal'' Syrians and non-islamic people. If he falls, Those people won't be having an easy time under the rule of the radical islamic rebels. People ignore how the rebels executed CHILDREN, but complain about a so-called chemical attack performed by Assad's regime. That's just stupid...

But of course, if the U.S.A (A nation that is being downright dishonest to it's own people) says that Assad was behind the chemical weapon attack, then you better believe it

[Azdgari]

Nicholas, I feel like you don't quite understand the severity of chemical weapons use. You care about children getting murdered? Take your pick around the world. Nobody intervened when two or three million people were slaughtered in the Congo/Rwanda/Burundi. Somalia? Angola? Darfur? These are massacres that make what's happening in Syria look pretty tame. But when you use chemical weapons, you change the game. And if you fail to react to their use you create a precedent that's okay.

Say two adults are fistfighting. A bunch of people are watching. They think, "This is awful, but these are grown people and they can do what they like (sovereignty within Syria's borders)." Then one of them pulls out a gun. This, on the other hand, is not at all legal, and goes against the laws we all obey. Furthermore, it's opening the door to a whole new level of violence. Say you let the person use the gun, and still think "gee, I don't want to get involved...". Now, anyone who wants to bring a gun to a fistfight knows that the laws against guns are meaningless, because they already used a gun with no reprecussions. It's like if police didn't enforce laws. There are international laws that define what we can and can't do even as sovereign states, and using chemical weapons is breaking those laws.

The UN investigation is stagnant and won't be done for at least a month. Classic. And I could be wrong (I don't have time right now to check it out) but I believe US and France (and maybe Britain?) are the only ones actually performed investigations. Which came to the same conclusion, supported by Assad's human rights record, refusal to ratify anti-chemical weapons treaties, and blatantly continuing a chemical weapons program, probably in response to the Israeli threat. Is it possible that rebels are responsible? Sure. I'm not going to say I'm certain because I'm a college student and not a boots on the ground reporter. But boots on the ground reporters from my and another country have what they call proof that Assad is responsible. So, to me, there's a clear course of action. Intervention.


tl;dr i like turtles

[Woeler]

[quote="TheBlackCatCrossing"]

That's because college kids think that they know everything when they take Poli Sci or Soc 101, doncha know? [/quote]

The "kid" is not "taking" "college". He is "studying" at the "university" and he will get his bachelors degree in political science and international relationships within the next year.

If knowledge came with age (which is what you seem to imply) the world would have been a far better place.

[FlipMode]

My opinion -
Chemical weapons being used against people is a bad thing, those responsible need a kick in the nuts. If an investigation is needed before said kick in the nuts can be given then sure, that makes sense.
They did say that they had "evidence" which is good enough for me. Let the boot swing true and fierce!

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote]Nicholas, I feel like you don't quite understand the severity of chemical weapons use. You care about children getting murdered? Take your pick around the world. Nobody intervened when two or three million people were slaughtered in the Congo/Rwanda/Burundi. Somalia? Angola? Darfur? These are massacres that make what's happening in Syria look pretty tame. But when you use chemical weapons, you change the game. And if you fail to react to their use you create a precedent that's okay.

Say two adults are fistfighting. A bunch of people are watching. They think, "This is awful, but these are grown people and they can do what they like (sovereignty within Syria's borders)." Then one of them pulls out a gun. This, on the other hand, is not at all legal, and goes against the laws we all obey. Furthermore, it's opening the door to a whole new level of violence. Say you let the person use the gun, and still think "gee, I don't want to get involved...". Now, anyone who wants to bring a gun to a fistfight knows that the laws against guns are meaningless, because they already used a gun with no reprecussions. It's like if police didn't enforce laws. There are international laws that define what we can and can't do even as sovereign states, and using chemical weapons is breaking those laws.[/quote]

I think that you are the one who doesn't quite understand me instead of vice versa. I meant that everything what the rebels do (be it killing innocent people, their ties with terrorist groups, and even the fact that Assad might not be responsible for the chemical weapon attack) are ignored by the U.S because it seems they're too busy focussing all the blame towards Assad whitout even paying freaking attention to something else, or thinking about the concequences of starting a new war. So you don't have to lecture me about illegal ways of fighting, I'm 21 years old and I know by now how stuff works.

[quote]The UN investigation is stagnant and won't be done for at least a month. Classic. And I could be wrong (I don't have time right now to check it out) but I believe US and France (and maybe Britain?) are the only ones actually performed investigations. Which came to the same conclusion, supported by Assad's human rights record, refusal to ratify anti-chemical weapons treaties, and blatantly continuing a chemical weapons program, probably in response to the Israeli threat. Is it possible that rebels are responsible? Sure. I'm not going to say I'm certain because I'm a college student and not a boots on the ground reporter. But boots on the ground reporters from my and another country have what they call proof that Assad is responsible. So, to me, there's a clear course of action. Intervention.[/quote]

But then again Russia claims to have found evidence that the chemical weapons were first in possession of the rebels before the chemical attack occured. I agree there should be an intervension though, but not in the form of a military offense against Assad's regime. By doing that, the U.S are basically helping terrorists (which is a huge punch in the face to people who had loved ones dying at 9/11) and giving power to radical islamic jihadists that wish for nothing more then to persecute and murder non-muslims, atheists, christians, or even some of their own kind who they concider to be too ''secular''. I think you are actually clueless about what kind of people jihadists really are... They're the kind of scum striving for world conquest with their religion. You should know that all the protection against innocent people in Syria will be blown to hell if a military intervension against Assad is going to take place.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Syria is in a very murky situation to be sure, but I really hope the US stays out of it. We have nothing to gain by striking them, but things could certainly go wrong.

1. I'm by no means a supporter of the Assad regime. They've long been known to be opressive. Here's the problem though. Many of the rebels are known to have close ties to Al Qaida and other such groups, and are committing atrocities of their own ( a video of some of them executing men in cold blood surfaced just today). Even with Assad gone, the rebels aren't at all likely to set up a Western style government, let alone one that is friendly to the US. When both sides are ultimately our enemy, why waste untold amounts of money to pick a side?

2. Although I'm not unsympathetic to the lives lost, this is currently a civil war limited to Syria. The use of US military force raises the stakes in the entire region considerably. Russia and Iran both have strong economic ties to the Assad government, and both have warned the US to stay out of it. As I mentioned above, the US does not benefit no matter who eventually winds up with power in Syria. I don't think it's worth it at all to risk an international crisis, or God forbid a full-blown regional war over this.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Congress will vote no to getting entangled in this mess.

[Kiburi]

Here's my pressing question.

Why doesn't Europe do something for once?
Why is it assumed that the United States are the international police force, or something?
If it is such a big issue, let them solve it, for once.

As tragic as this is, it just does not make sense for us to get involved in another war.
And, as selfish as this may sound to some, we need to keep our nation's best interests in mind.
We aren't involved now, so why go looking for trouble?
Did any other countries help us when we had a civil war? That's right! They didn't! They let us deal with it ourselves, like they should have!
So, how about we just stay as far away from this issue as possible (and Syria), and if some other country wants to do something about it, go ahead and let them have at it!
I'm tired of the USA doing everything for everyone else, with our troops, and our tax dollars.