Syria

Unknown Soldier · 08-30-2013, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

It's short-sighted not to intervene. I'm sure intelligence is weighing the options of what the outcome would be with or without intervention. It's not just a decision that's being made hastily and without forethought regardless of what other events has happened in the past.

Really, I think history tells us just the opposite in respect to this type of conflict. When countries get dragged into these conflicts, it's usually for the long haul and all the knock-on bad effects that go with it. The zone affected normally become far less stable and causes an international headache. Dictators despite their evils, do keep a certain amount of stability within the zone. Personally I'm happy that for once the UK is not getting involved in something, that has nothing to do with them.

djchameleon · 08-30-2013, 09:19 AM

Does anyone know if the UN has mentioned anything?

hip hop bunny hop · 08-30-2013, 09:30 AM

Ya, DJ Chameleon. The U.N. has actually come out and accused Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons: link

Oh snap. You mean has anyone substantiated reports that the Syrian Government used Chemical Weapons? No, because Rebel groups refuse to allow U.N. inspectors in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

In the end they are probably not going to do anything and just show Syria that it's okay to use chemical attacks against civilians because other countries are tired of always getting involved and then terrorist groups will roll with this and decide that chemical attacks are the way to go.

Expect to see more chemical attacks happening because everyone's whining about "oh the west shouldn't get involved"

Not quite. Saddam Hussein made far more extensive use of gas against the Kurds in the 90s, and his usage of it in the Iran-Iraq War is certainly not forgotten either. Did the lack of response by the international community result in a surge of chemical warfare immediately following either example? No.

The Batlord · 08-30-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

It's short-sighted not to intervene. I'm sure intelligence is weighing the options of what the outcome would be with or without intervention. It's not just a decision that's being made hastily and without forethought regardless of what other events has happened in the past.

Why? Because it will lead to more chemical attacks? We already knew they were killing their own people. Now they're just doing it in an even less politically correct manner. As far as I'm concerned nothing has changed. Let them do what they're going to do. Our involvement is only going to cause unforseen problems for them and for us.

And I'd just like to say that if you want us to intervene then you should feel some obligation to join the military or at least in some way to support the military in any way you can besides just talking. If you want to send others to die for your moral beliefs that you have no desire to back up with your own actions then that is unconscionable and is why these pointless wars happen in the first place.

~~butthead aka 216~~ · 08-30-2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Why? Because it will lead to more chemical attacks? We already knew they were killing their own people. Now they're just doing it in an even less politically correct manner. As far as I'm concerned nothing has changed. Let them do what they're going to do. Our involvement is only going to cause unforseen problems for them and for us.

And I'd just like to say that if you want us to intervene then you should feel some obligation to join the military or at least in some way to support the military in any way you can besides just talking. If you want to send others to die for your moral beliefs that you have no desire to back up with your own actions then that is unconscionable and is why these pointless wars happen in the first place.

from what i've read theres no chance we will send troops. military support on our end would be in the form of arming he rebels with more serious firepower or possibly missile strikes from afar. i dont think we would put our troops on the ground over there. not that i dont think we are stupid enough but ive just read obama is reluctant to jump into anything and we wont throw troops at assad. chamaleon could be talkin about ground troops tho i dunno for sure

the more i read i feel pretty apprehensive about arming the rebels cause it sounds like theres a good chance those weapons would end up in the hands of religous group terrorists or al quadea and i dont want them to have our weapons lol. maybe we could booby trap the weapons and give them directly to al quada?? lol thatd be awesome

djchameleon · 08-30-2013, 10:43 AM

I'm not sure if you know it but I am a veteran. If I could sign back up and go over there. I would. I already served my time in the military. I just feel like there is information that our intelligence knows why they are even considering getting involved. Also, I wasn't talking about ground troops batty just made the leap because he thinks that's the direction it will head in.

The Batlord · 08-30-2013, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by butthead aka 216

from what i've read theres no chance we will send troops. military support on our end would be in the form of arming he rebels with more serious firepower or possibly missile strikes from afar. i dont think we would put our troops on the ground over there. not that i dont think we are stupid enough but ive just read obama is reluctant to jump into anything and we wont throw troops at assad. chamaleon could be talkin about ground troops tho i dunno for sure

Again. Look at Kosovo. Clinton was dead-set against sending in troops, but once the air attacks failed then he did it anyway. Once we've committed to a goal we're going to do our damndest to accomplish it if only to save face. Which means that I have no faith in Obama's assurances to not send in troops. Obama's foreign policy is no different than Bush's. He's just as much of a war mongering neo-con and can go **** himself as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

the more i read i feel pretty apprehensive about arming the rebels cause it sounds like theres a good chance those weapons would end up in the hands of religous group terrorists or al quadea and i dont want them to have our weapons lol. maybe we could booby trap the weapons and give them directly to al quada?? lol thatd be awesome

Yeah, I have no faith in the cause of the rebels. Even if it doesn't lead to Al Qaeda seizing power I imagine it'll just lead to someone as bad or worse than Assad. Look at Egypt. Not nearly as bloody a conflict as Syria, and yet it's already going to ****. Violent revolutions never end well.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-30-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

They aren't against it but now that they have seen a test run with results of course it will become more frequent.

Do you think the threat of a military response is an effective deterrent against terrorism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Yeah, I have no faith in the cause of the rebels. Even if it doesn't lead to Al Qaeda seizing power I imagine it'll just lead to someone as bad or worse than Assad. Look at Egypt. Not nearly as bloody a conflict as Syria, and yet it's already going to ****. Violent revolutions never end well.

In Egypt there was never really a transfer of power. The military regime maintained control the whole time.

As for violent revolutions... I can think of at least 1 that worked out alright.

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 08-30-2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

If there's one thing that gets my gonads in a twist, it's the American government talking about "intervening" in this or that conflict. It's not our war.

It IS our war. We really can't stay out of it. This is based on if poison gas is really being used. That has to concern us. It has to concern the world.

Quote:

There's no way of telling what the effects of our involvement might be.

It won't be good because it never is. What else is new?

Quote:

And now we're talking about interfering in Syria without any respect for the law of unintended consequences?

We invaded Iraq based on lies. It's a little late to start worrying about unintended consequences.

djchameleon · 08-31-2013, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

Do you think the threat of a military response is an effective deterrent against terrorism?

No, it's not but that **** is not okay what went down and to turn a blind eye to it and shrug it off like it's not our problem will cause it to be our problem in the future.