Attack on Syria is it justified ?
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
Saddam Hussein is one the biggest back stabs by the U.S. in modern history.
http://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-of-americas-33-year-love-affair-with-saddam-and-iraq-2013-3
For all the lackey nations trying to get the U.S. to "protect" them and sell them weapons you are going to be in for a big surprise down the road. *ahem* ---- Phillipines.
http://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-of-americas-33-year-love-affair-with-saddam-and-iraq-2013-3
For all the lackey nations trying to get the U.S. to "protect" them and sell them weapons you are going to be in for a big surprise down the road. *ahem* ---- Phillipines.
I am not an isolationist, but neither do i believe that "The West" or specifically North America needs to intervene whenever someone in the another country stubs their toe.Which is indeed a totally Isolationist perspective on the world. Anyone can do anything to anybody (multiparty treaties be damned) so long as they aren't doing it directly to me.
The interventionist might (heavy emphasis on might) have good intentions in trying to help the oppressed or innocents, but the end result will always be the same.
Why do we keep doing the same thing and expect different results?
My summary of these scenarios (remember this is a generalization).
1. Unstable country/oppressed country has many citizens suffering under the control of some party/person/dictator
Usually, the citizens of this country have some sort distaste for "The West" and our liberal ways in allowing
women and gays to have rights or some sort of nonsense.
The ruling party probably came to power because many of the citizens of the country supported these views and
many of them backed the ruling party/person/dictator. The ruling party/person/dictator probably fueled those
anti-west sentiments to get into power.
2. At some point, the human rights violations (as defined by "The West") become overbearing (again according to our definition).
OMG, women are required to cover themselves from head to toe and they are not allowed to drive.
OMG they cut off the hands of thieves, and dissenters are routinely rounded up and sent to jail.
Of course these things were probably already happening before the ruling party/person/dictator stepped in, but hey back
in those days the citizens of the country were in support of it.
3. The citizens of the country start to rebel, or cry out for help.
4. Some country (Russia, China, US, Europeans, Iran, Israel) start to take one side over the other. Some other countries
start to back the other side.
5. Both sides in the battle start to claim that the other is in violation or human rights or evil or support terrorists or some such thing.
6. The people in the country continue to cry out for help, and will back one side or the other.
As the casualties mount, the people's cries get more desperate. They now blame "The West" for not helping them or stepping
in to save them.
7. America (The White Knight) steps in. "We have to save the people of that fair land from destruction"
America proceeds to bomb the shit out of the country. Killing one? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? civilians
8. The ruling party/dictator/person goes on a rampage and kills more civilians, and then blames it on the
the Americans. The ruling party/dictator/person amps up the anti-west rhetoric and uses that to
appeal to the citizens of the country.
9. The citizens of the country find it easier to believe that the "evil Westerners" are more likely to
commit such heinous crimes than the ruling party/dictator/person.
10. America succeeds in getting rid of the ruling party/dictator/person.
11. After the fall of the powerful party, the rest of the power brokers in the country start fighting for power. The next year? five years? ten years? is spent
with the power brokers fighting for power while the citizens suffer.
12. At the end they all hate the west for putting them in such a state.
PROGRESS!!!!!!!!
Exactly.Politics is one big spineless hypocrisy. Allies today enemies tomorrow vice versa. All about deluding yourself if the situation fits to justify stupidity after stupidity
There is no such thing as permanent allies, only permanent self-interests
Coming from someone who loves to post cryptic points, not surprised at that. Why not not tell us in plain english what your point is.As usual, the point is completely lost on rockie.
What else is new
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/syria-and-the-presidents-authority-to-intervene-podcast
For those who want to spend the time and be truly informed on the U.S. Constitutional arguments.
An aproximately hour long podcast from the Federalist Society of a debate between Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law
and
Prof. John Yoo of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law - Boat Hall.
For those who want to spend the time and be truly informed on the U.S. Constitutional arguments.
An aproximately hour long podcast from the Federalist Society of a debate between Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law
and
Prof. John Yoo of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law - Boat Hall.
justifified? yesThe Americans are positioning to launch an attach on Syria for the use of chemical weapons. Do you think this justified or is the another hunt
for non existent weapons of mass destruction.
is it wise? no. it will be a real mess just like iraq
But the US doesn't want ground troops, just drop a few bombs and that's it.justifified? yes
is it wise? no. it will be a real mess just like iraq
How could that be a real mess for the Americans?
For the Syrians yes, it will be a real fucking mess.
How it could be a real mess for Americans you ask?But the US doesn't want ground troops, just drop a few bombs and that's it.
How could that be a real mess for the Americans?
For the Syrians yes, it will be a real fucking mess.
Here is one scenario. If this missile strike does truly weaken Assad and leading him to lose the war and be disposed of by these so-called rebels, there is going to be one big mess in the future where troops will be called again on the ground. The rebels are not one group but a series of factions. Imagine these guys go at it since there is going to be a power vacuum. This means that bio/chemical weapons cache becomes a free for all. American allies in the region are not safe. If the US/NATO has to send boots to the ground to secure these weapon stock piles and some nut in these factions decided to unleash them, Iraq/Afghanistan will look like Disneyland compared to this possible mess. If there are massive casualties world markets are going to tank and oil/gold will be shooting through the roof.
So yeah it is absolutely terrible for what happened since so many children perished but it would be absolutely stupid for the U.S. to get involved since all the parties in the Syrian civil war are enemies to the West. No matter who wins we are fucked down the road. The smart move is for these guys to beat each other senseless to the point where it is a Pyhric victory for the winner and by then we could possibly go in and clean shop. Or maybe we get smart and have all these lackey nations to do the work for us for once. Namely Saudi Arabia and Israel.
thats true- the question now is- should the US act now to seize those chemical weapons? thats the real question. if israel thinks the wrong group could seize those chemical weapons they will bomb them
- depending on who wins, it will get messy. very messy.
if the US bombs- they could help the wrong element or they could spread chemcial weapons or it could all go according to plan and they will still be blamed by someone. there is no winning in the middle east.
- depending on who wins, it will get messy. very messy.
if the US bombs- they could help the wrong element or they could spread chemcial weapons or it could all go according to plan and they will still be blamed by someone. there is no winning in the middle east.
Another thing I dont understand is whats difference between dying from a regular bomb or a chemical bomb. I realize chemical weapons are illegal under Geneva Act, and also chemwarfare can cause more grotesque deaths and injuries. But at the end of the day so can conventional weapons, so what does it matter if you die from a regular bomb or a chemical bomb?! Either way you're dead.
Sorry if that sounds cold and heartless
Sorry if that sounds cold and heartless
It is the number of people killed.Another thing I dont understand is whats difference between dying from a regular bomb or a chemical bomb. I realize chemical weapons are illegal under Geneva Act, and also chemwarfare can cause more grotesque deaths and injuries. But at the end of the day so can conventional weapons, so what does it matter if you die from a regular bomb or a chemical bomb?! Either way you're dead.
Sorry if that sounds cold and heartless
Conventional weapons have been trending towards greater accuracy, to kill as few bystanders as possible. Nobody bombs entire cities anymore, now that you can actually hit not only the specific factory you need to destroy, but pick the window to send the missile through.
WMDs are going the other way, increasing the scale of the people they kill. They target everyone in an area killing the maximum number of people.
We don't accept that as valid warfare.
Other weapons that have a similar area effect are also subject to varying degrees of regulation. Cluster bombs, landmines, etc.
With the weapons available today there is no justification for hitting an entire area, you can single out the enemy and aim at them.
Thus we need to be preventing the use and spread of all forms of wmd, and eventually reducing their numbers to zero.
^^^ if you're talking about smartbombs fuji, I'm pretty sure Syria doesnt have that capability. AFAIK they just drop lots of ordinance from their planes, and hope they kill as many rebels as they can.
Collateral damage be damned
Collateral damage be damned
Syria has guided weapons. They have been using them to blow up hospitals.^^^ if you're talking about smartbombs fuji, I'm pretty sure Syria doesnt have that capability. AFAIK they just drop lots of ordinance from their planes, and hope they kill as many rebels as they can.
Collateral damage be damned
Just had lunch with some Arab friends who have relatives in and around Syria. The relatives all claim that it was Al Qaeda who sent the nerve gas to kill the civilians not Assad. Has there been any definitive proof yet as to who sent the missiles? I think the US needs to wait for the UN to complete their investigation before taking any action. No matter what, it's a no-win situation for Obama. But then again, he is not in power to win a popularity contest, he's there to do what us right for the country and to protect it. My nickles worth.
According to reports, the launch sites are on the government side of the battle front. It would be a good trick for AQ to do that.Just had lunch with some Arab friends who have relatives in and around Syria. The relatives all claim that it was Al Qaeda who sent the nerve gas to kill the civilians not Assad. Has there been any definitive proof yet as to who sent the missiles? I think the US needs to wait for the UN to complete their investigation before taking any action. No matter what, it's a no-win situation for Obama. But then again, he is not in power to win a popularity contest, he's there to do what us right for the country and to protect it. My nickles worth.
Hhhmm......maybe you're right. I didnt know the Russians had sold them stuff (although the article doesnt say anything about air-to-ground missiles)Syria has guided weapons. They have been using them to blow up hospitals
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...a-with-their-most-advanced-anti-ship-missiles
Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles
Russia has sold Syria highly advanced rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles. In fact, the P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles that Russia has equipped Syria with are the most advanced anti-ship missiles that Russia has. When the United States strikes Syria, they might be quite surprised at how hard Syria can hit back.
The Syrian military is the most formidable adversary that the U.S. military has tangled with in the Middle East by far. From Syria, P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles can cover much of the eastern Mediterranean and can even reach air bases in Cyprus. If the U.S. Navy is not very careful to stay out of range, we could easily see footage of destroyed U.S. naval vessels sinking into the Mediterranean Sea on the evening news.
And once the American people see such footage, it will be impossible to stop a full-blown war between the United States and Syria.
Syria has highly advanced weapons systems that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya did not have. Anyone that thinks that we can just sit back and lob cruise missiles at them is being naive. Syria has weapons that "have never before been seen" in the Middle East
Popcorn is ready here and fridge is full of some good Lager.http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...a-with-their-most-advanced-anti-ship-missiles
Russia has sold Syria highly advanced rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles. In fact, the P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles that Russia has equipped Syria with are the most advanced anti-ship missiles that Russia has. When the United States strikes Syria, they might be quite surprised at how hard Syria can hit back.
The Syrian military is the most formidable adversary that the U.S. military has tangled with in the Middle East by far.
