Seems like a very prevalent topic in the news lately.
What do you think the U.S. (and the global community, U.N., etc.) should do, if anything, about the alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad on his own people?
Iran 2013. If we interfere, other Muslims extremists will take over after Assad - score settling and religion strife from Christians Sunnis and Shias. The rebel groups are all individually attempting to grab power, they're not friends.
Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to his regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, the kind of outcome most people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as everyone is so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Strategic bombing isn't likely to scare a man desperate enough to gas his own people.
Best scenario is leave them alone. It should not be America's job to police the world.
LETS GIT IN THER AND KEEL ALL 'DEM TURRORISTS BEFORE DEM KNOCK OVER MUR BILDIN'S!!! Sorry, had to act like a stereotypical American for a minute. In all reality, I agree with Dudecore 100%. Stay out of there, we aren't the international police. If the UN wants to take action against Assad for using chemical weapons, by all means go for it but we don't need to spend more money and throw away more lives for another 20 year war that isn't our business.
Chemical warfare violates the Geneva Conventions. Also, who cares? We can't afford to put troops on the ground - there is no more money to borrow so we can wage another war. Bombing a few buildings to show our "might" is a load of garbage, it will not do anything. Saddam and Osama did not turn themselves in because they were scared, it's never happened ever.
Since when does the U.S. care about the Geneva convention, being the only country in the world to nuke 2 civilian populaces?
/\ Too true. Anyway I watched Obama at 1:50pm and he said he wants to punish them and "strike at them". He wouldn't elaborate but did say that he would wait for Congress's approval, hinted that he would ignore the UN and said he would be cautious about going into a full scale war though because we "are a war-weary country".
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 03:17:57 PM
They ignored the un treaty something or other. That treaty involves us. If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.
Did Syria signed this treaty too?
I'm with DC on this one, and let's not forget that we don't have the proof of Syria using the weapons, they deny. We have seen this done to us before when government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Irak.
We need to cut any and all aid we have been giving them and tell them to go fornicate with themself. We do not need to be in another country, which is what this will turn into.
Quote from: Wingnut on August 31, 2013, 06:05:38 PM
We need to cut any and all aid we have been giving them and tell them to go fornicate with themself.
Strongly disagree. All voluntary aid should be left alone.
Quote from: Wingnut on August 31, 2013, 06:05:38 PM
We need to cut any and all aid we have been giving them and tell them to go fornicate with themself. We do not need to be in another country, which is what this will turn into.
Lots of innocent people will die as well. One of the largests population deaths of all time occurred when the US filed sanctions against North Korea. Millions of people starved to death, were denied access to western medicines and all existing supplies were withheld for use by military goons. It happened in Iraq and everywhere we've ever tried it.
The dictators never suffer, the people do. By stating that any humanitarian aid given to our enemies, makes you our enemy, human suffering occurs. Nothing is worse then killing innocent people to show that killing innocent people is wrong.
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:04:18 PM
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 03:17:57 PM
They ignored the un treaty something or other. That treaty involves us. If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.
Did Syria signed this treaty too?
I actually have no idea. I think they did. I might be wrong though.
This is important, because if they didn't then I can't see how intervention could be legally based on the fact that Syria possibly broke treaty they never signed.
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 07:07:28 PM
regardless of that, we DO NOT want people using chemical/biological warfare. it would not end good. in my opion we should crack down hard on any chemical warfare use.
Why? What difference does it make if I die from mustard gas, nuclear bomb, Predator drone or .22 bullet to the head?
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:04:18 PM
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 03:17:57 PM
They ignored the un treaty something or other. That treaty involves us. If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.
Did Syria signed this treaty too?
I actually have no idea. I think they did. I might be wrong though.
They did, along with 98% of the world. The treaty is the Geneva Convention, here is a list of the countries that signed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
While I agree that we can't let people use chemical weapons, especially on innocent civilians, it is not America's job to stop the Assad regime. Let the U.N. investigation find what it will find and the UN do whatever they choose is best.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:04:18 PM
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 03:17:57 PM
They ignored the un treaty something or other. That treaty involves us. If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.
Did Syria signed this treaty too?
I actually have no idea. I think they did. I might be wrong though.
They did, along with 98% of the world. The treaty is the Geneva Convention, here is a list of the countries that signed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
Excellent, now if someone (including me), without providing counter-proof, claims that Syria can legally use chemical weapons, they can be punished for lying by people who are hurt by that particular lie. Makes sense?
Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 07:42:48 PM
The only reason I want the us to go after them, is that the un has no plans to punish them. They are claiming that it isn't the country who did it or something. (Which brings up the debate of making the un keep their agreements). Their chemical weapon use has to stop, and no one else wants to do it.
Why use of chemical weapons has to stop and use of Apache helicopters and Predator drones has not? Or perhaps both should stop?
There was a movie leaked a couple of years ago showing how American helicopters are killing civilians in Iraq.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=iraq%20apache%20video&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5rXPrfnU3G0&ei=AAcjUpD-LYenhAf1u4CQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFh-RF47VE7G7WNH8TjQsJ2lNByIQ&sig2=BzcpGL79-YjWaMD_ZcpE6w&bvm=bv.51495398,d.ZG4
Do you know how many civilians were killed in Iraq by Americans and their allies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
You are killing people to protect them from oppressive government. Lets kill them so they don't have to suffer, right :p
My teacher pointed out how we aren't looking at Syria, but instead looking at things like...
Miley Cyrus who is everywhere.
She even said Miley Cyrus was a way to keep the public distracted from Syria, a program put forth by the government.
She was kidding but we laughed. Then she blasted Uprising from these big speakers in her classroom.
Quote from: Taysby on September 01, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.
Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on September 01, 2013, 06:30:27 PM
My teacher pointed out how we aren't looking at Syria, but instead looking at things like...
Miley Cyrus who is everywhere.
She even said Miley Cyrus was a way to keep the public distracted from Syria, a program put forth by the government.
She was kidding but we laughed. Then she blasted Uprising from these big speakers in her classroom.
Every society gets the news they deserve. If people didnt want to hear about Miley Cyrus - don't watch, tell your friends to not watch, they'll stop bringing it up. Corporations like money much more then they do Miley Cyrus.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 11:54:57 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 01, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.
Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?
I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 01, 2013, 11:58:24 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 11:54:57 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 01, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.
Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?
I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
I meant the outcome more then anything, not the population or potential targets. Accepting that you have to kill innocent people makes you an aggressor. You've forfeited your own humanity as well, you should volunteer to die in those people's place. If you'd be unwilling to do so for the greater good - I'd suggest you not be so quick to see aggression as a solution.
Edit: if anything that article proves to highlight the selective bias of some folks. North Korea has starved millions of their own people, given an awful, painful, miserable death. Labor camps and malnutrition have ravaged their region. We've yet to consider strategic bombings, peace talks are ongoing.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 01, 2013, 11:58:24 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 11:54:57 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 01, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.
Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?
I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
Do not lie. "But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods."
Quote from: Piotr on September 02, 2013, 04:09:25 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 01, 2013, 11:58:24 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 11:54:57 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 01, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.
Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?
I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
Do not lie. "But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods."
Oops, didn't see that Taysby said "than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons." I though he was talking about the number of deaths in general. Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 02, 2013, 04:14:05 AM
Quote from: Piotr on September 02, 2013, 04:09:25 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 01, 2013, 11:58:24 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 11:54:57 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 01, 2013, 11:07:15 PM
I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.
Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?
I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
Do not lie. "But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods."
Oops, didn't see that Taysby said "than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons." I though he was talking about the number of deaths in general. Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.
No worries, I'm not sure what Taysby really meant, just a friendly reminder ;)
Quote from: Taysby on September 03, 2013, 04:55:36 PM
What I ment was that if chemical weapons didnt stop more people would die than if they were being used. I guesstimated the numbers.
This line of thought is impossible to prove thus cannot be used to prove anything. We cannot know the future, according to current physics.
Quote from: Piotr on September 03, 2013, 06:59:44 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 03, 2013, 04:55:36 PM
What I ment was that if chemical weapons didnt stop more people would die than if they were being used. I guesstimated the numbers.
This line of thought is impossible to prove thus cannot be used to prove anything. We cannot know the future, according to current physics.
Truth bomb.
It is the role of the citizens to revolt against their oppressors. They will not win without the military on their side (proof: every coup ever). It's the fault of anyone who allows another entity to claim dominion over man. They have not derived their power from anything other then their monopoly on the use of force.
Ruthless aggression (like the type used by governments) will be met with bloodshed. It's an unfortunate reality. The United States has no business using aggression to solve aggression.