Syria

the thing is the US is actually supporting organizations that are heavilly involved with al qaeda

@Diavolo: No, it was more of a general statement.

Pedram wrote:This chemical attack sounds fishy, why would Assad regime commit such a stupid act and give US a reason to declare war on them when they are slowly winning the civil war.

French, German, and American (and British?) intelligence reports all said that the regime used chemical weapons.

Giggity5313 wrote:

Mamad wrote:USA supporting terrorists to achieve their goal? nothing new.

rebels cut a young man's hands and legs and left him on the street.

your from iran and you want to make me believe you know what is going on more then other ppl.

lol pls. you are just as brainwashed as we are

I know things you don't. your source is TV mine is some of my friends and family there.

US wants asad gone. no matter what. no matter how.

So I've been listening to the debate in American media and here are my 2 cents:

- A lot of the debate centers around the fact that WMDs have now been used. Why is this any more tragic than 100x that many people dying from bullets instead? I find the argument that the US' credibility is questioned if it does not act on this red line that Obama mentioned a year ago, but think it is an arbitrary point.

- Many of the 'people in the streets' interview mention how they want the US to 'do something' and aid the opposition to improve the condition of the people currently in Syria. I remain unconvinced that a military strike to special targets, increase in military aid to the opposition, or even direct military involvement would help the average Syrian. Direct aid to refugee camps would probably be more effective towards that end.I don't think this point is making it through to the American public.

- If the US ultimately decides to do a military strike with specific goals designed to hit at Assad's regime and 'punish' them for using WMDs and Assad remains in power, does that ultimately change anything? Why is it the US' role (or to use a loaded phrase, the white man's burden) to improve war conditions across the globe?

- The longer that the debate rages on the more time Assad has to hide his WMDs and the less effective a military strike would be. So Obama's decision to go to congress and to not call it back is rather surprising.

- If the US were to do anything, they should get the support of the Arab League.

I'm fairly sure that strikes aimed at Syria's military bases would definitely help end the war. They would destroy a significant portion of Assad's forces. That's what NATO did in Libya, and it helped tremendously. And the sooner the war in Syria ends, the better it is for the average Syrian.

I don't really think that's what is being talked about. The likeliest scenario is that the US would do a first strike aimed at hitting specific military targets in order to deter any governments from using chemical weapons again. In doing so they would inevitably hit civilians because no matter how precise US technology is the military bases and weapons locations are not in isolated places. The US doesn't want to kill Assad right now as he's a known enemy and they are not exactly fans of the resurgent jihadists either. So they would decrease Assad's military power without taking him from power, killing civilians in the process, and extending the war that Assad is currently winning. Since the war will be extended there will be more deaths and displacement.

I don't think the civilians will win out if the US steps in.

7amood11 wrote:I'm fairly sure that strikes aimed at Syria's military bases would definitely help end the war. They would destroy a significant portion of Assad's forces. That's what NATO did in Libya, and it helped tremendously. And the sooner the war in Syria ends, the better it is for the average Syrian.

How are things in Liya now? Do you have estability and democracy?

free_cat wrote:

7amood11 wrote:I'm fairly sure that strikes aimed at Syria's military bases would definitely help end the war. They would destroy a significant portion of Assad's forces. That's what NATO did in Libya, and it helped tremendously. And the sooner the war in Syria ends, the better it is for the average Syrian.

How are things in Liya now? Do you have estability and democracy?

a new central bank is all that matters

free_cat wrote:

7amood11 wrote:I'm fairly sure that strikes aimed at Syria's military bases would definitely help end the war. They would destroy a significant portion of Assad's forces. That's what NATO did in Libya, and it helped tremendously. And the sooner the war in Syria ends, the better it is for the average Syrian.

How are things in Liya now? Do you have estability and democracy?

Not yet. In fact, things have become even worse over the past 4-5 months, more than it was during the year before that (blame the PM that was appointed last October). More violence and more highway carjackings have occurred. And that's in Tripoli. Things are worse in other cities.

But I still have hope. It's impossible for a country to immediately get back up on its feet following a huge war. I'd say Libya needs at least 3 or 4 more years at least before it gains some actual stability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130904&_r=0

Interesting op-ed. I'd like to learn more about how Syria's opposition military is divided. Obama claimed that 15-25% of the rebels are jihadists. If there were a way to arm only the moderate, pro-western part of the rebels that might be very preferable than bombing select parts of Syria.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I don't really think that's what is being talked about. The likeliest scenario is that the US would do a first strike aimed at hitting specific military targets in order to deter any governments from using chemical weapons again. In doing so they would inevitably hit civilians because no matter how precise US technology is the military bases and weapons locations are not in isolated places. The US doesn't want to kill Assad right now as he's a known enemy and they are not exactly fans of the resurgent jihadists either. So they would decrease Assad's military power without taking him from power, killing civilians in the process, and extending the war that Assad is currently winning. Since the war will be extended there will be more deaths and displacement.

I don't think the civilians will win out if the US steps in.

Agree.

However, the problem is...the civilians still won't win if the US ( or any one else for that matter) doesn't step in. Effectively leaving their fate in the hands of a man who has shown no qualms about annihilating them in a variety of ways is distasteful for Obama, to say the least.

What a weak president Obozo turned out to be,

Random middle eastern dictator and Lavrov 1

Obama and his sidekick kerry 0

Obama just finished his speech.

Finally, an American president actually acknowledging that America cannot be the world police.

Even though I disagree with Obama and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must do something for Syria as we cannot let chemical weapons attacks go unopposed.

I hope what Obama said about rebuilding at home and not being the world policemen is a promise kept unlike his "change" bull crap.

Also I am very happy he approached Congress to get approval on a military action. Great sign of a hopefully lessened power of the executive branch.

Humans are good at "forgetting" terrible acts, just look at the genocide on 1,5 million Armenians by the Turks. Happened in 1915.

This is just another brawl I guess?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:What a weak president Obozo turned out to be,

Random middle eastern dictator and Lavrov 1

Obama and his sidekick kerry 0

Tell me since when starting a war has been a sign of strength you genius.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:What a weak president Obozo turned out to be,

Random middle eastern dictator and Lavrov 1

Obama and his sidekick kerry 0

A President actually respects the Constitutional power of Congress and the will of the public? How weak!

Seriously, unbelievable.

Pedram wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:What a weak president Obozo turned out to be,

Random middle eastern dictator and Lavrov 1

Obama and his sidekick kerry 0

Tell me since when starting a war has been a sign of strength you genius.

Obama says "“a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized”, Syria proceeds to utilize these weapons and they go unpunished. Obama also used every means to try to get out of the commitment he made using the red line comment (notably going to congress and not calling congress back, which delayed the process for weeks).

I don't think it's impossible to imagine how they would interpret this as weak in Iran or North Korea.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Pedram wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:What a weak president Obozo turned out to be,

Random middle eastern dictator and Lavrov 1

Obama and his sidekick kerry 0

Tell me since when starting a war has been a sign of strength you genius.

Obama says "“a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized”, Syria proceeds to utilize these weapons and they go unpunished. Obama also used every means to try to get out of the commitment he made using the red line comment (notably going to congress and not calling congress back, which delayed the process for weeks).

I don't think it's impossible to imagine how they would interpret this as weak in Iran or North Korea.

Obama's reluctance is understandable, the war will have severe consequences, Syria is not Iraq, they have Russia, Iran, China and North Korea as their allies, this could very easily lead into a third world war if handled badly. why start another war if it can be solved through diplomatic means.

nobody's going to start a world war over syria lmao... if something happens it will be a long drawn-out pseudo-proxy-war with russians getting rid of obsolete weapons on one side and halliburton and general dynamics getting billions from the american government on the other side ad infinitum

the entire "red line is chemical weapons" is such bullshit too... this thing has been going on for two years, literally hundreds of thousands of people have died, but who cares so long as they're incinerated by explosions rather than choked by gas...

Yuri what's wrong with you? The man with the most power in the whole damn world just voluntarily weakened his position. He just followed the Constitution? Jesus Christ it's a miracle how is that weak?

I hope other President's follow this lead. It's about time our leaders stopped ripping up the Constitution.

RedOranje wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:What a weak president Obozo turned out to be,

Random middle eastern dictator and Lavrov 1

Obama and his sidekick kerry 0

A President actually respects the Constitutional power of Congress and the will of the public?  How weak!

Seriously, unbelievable.

Its not about the congressional approval, its about the person who represents us saying things he doesnt mean and the KGB outplaying him at every move

First the muppet says "Assad must go" then does nothing about it, Assad still here

Then the muppet says "CW is a redline!" then does nothing about it as french and UK confirm smaller attacks, Assad so emboldened he does it in front of UN inspectors then doesnt let those inspectors enter for six days as he shells the area. The muppet goes to congress when he does need to, knowing that the house will vote down any proposal he brings.

Lastly the muppets sidekick says "We would stop the strike if Syria agrees to handover its stockpile in a week, but thats impossible!" Lavrov outplays them and gets Syria to agree to handover its stockpile knowing very well that it would take 3-5 years to do that and frankly that doesn't even matter cuz Assad knows how to make the CW!

The american administration is a joke! I never thought Obozo would do so bad

Davide Moscardelli wrote:Yuri what's wrong with you? The man with the most power in the whole damn world just voluntarily weakened his position. He just followed the Constitution? Jesus Christ it's a miracle how is that weak?

I hope other President's follow this lead. It's about time our leaders stopped ripping up the Constitution.

Obozo just hurt both US credibility and leadership in a way we have not seen in decades, he got outplayed diplomatically in a way that we have not seen before. Our allies in the face of danger feel their position is threatned and are doubting the strengths of our relationship, all the way from Japan & South Korea to Turkey & Israel.

Maybe I am the one that should ask what is wrong with you? why do you like seeing a weak and defeated america?

No, they aren't. We should be happy he followed the Constitution. Only thing we should change is Obama coming out and banging his swords acting like we would go to war immediately.

Davide Moscardelli wrote:No, they aren't. We should be happy he followed the Constitution. Only thing we should change is Obama coming out and banging his swords acting like we would go to war immediately.

What are you talking about? Obama went to congress because he was too weak to act on his own, then he showed the world that he is too weak to even get congress to agree with him. He never brought up the issue of the constitution and maintained that he did still have authorization for gods sake.

If you want the constitution to be respected then you should ask your elected official to repeal the war act of 1973 or sue the USG infront of SCOTUS on the issue, president has nothing to do with it.


Weak, weak, weak

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Obozo just hurt both US credibility and leadership in a way we have not seen in decades, he got outplayed diplomatically in a way that we have not seen before. Our allies in the face of danger feel their position is threatned and are doubting the strengths of our relationship, all the way from Japan & South Korea to Turkey & Israel.

any source on this or just the fox reruns in your bomb shelter? because the three countries' news i monitor - england, holland and slovakia - all talk about how happy political analysts are with usa not playing world police once again... look up polls of americans themselves ffs, even your own countrymen don't want to go to war, nevermind the allies

Maybe I am the one that should ask what is wrong with you? why do you like seeing a weak and defeated america?

i know americans have been doing it for the better part of 70 years, but there are other ways to show strength apart from bombing the shit out of some coloured people... NOT bombing the shit out of coloured people when you have the opportunity to do so, for instance

but don't let that get in the way of your jingoistic bullshit about how accepting an entirely reasonable proposition by the dirty commies makes you weak and defeated... murica indeed

Obama went to Congress because if he didn't his public polls would once again plummet further as all the polls are showing the majority of Americans are against the war. He brought up the whole world police thing and how he wants Congressional approval moving forward which, for your information, means following the Constitution.


And the international community is tired of using being this police force with hundreds of bases in countries around the globe. As history shows us, we should stop getting involved in foreign problems as we cannot adequately solve them ourselves.