Unknown Soldier

But there are at least a dozen conflicts going on in the world at the moment, so what makes one conflict more worthy of US interference than another?

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

4gotmyPW

I don't care how Assad kills his people, the United States should not get involved, the logic of the US is insane basically our gov't was ok w/ him shooting his people to death but somehow a line is crossed when chemicals are used to achieve the same goal.

Foh if we get into a war w/ these retards I swear I'm moving to Canada or Sweeden I refuse to pay for another stupid war.

The Batlord

Not our part of the world, not our citizens, not our government in jeopardy, not our war.

And if you could explain how exactly Syria using chemical weapons should concern the entire world then I could actually go about discussing this point.


So...you agree that getting involved in a volatile situation with unknown variables, outcomes, and consequences is a bad idea?


First of all, what does this have to do with Iraq? Secondly, why is it too late? It's never too late to start thinking in the long term.

If you're talking about the American Revolution, then I have to disagree. Not because it didn't turn out well, it just wasn't a revolution in the same sense as the French, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc, etc, etc revolutions were. The current system of power (i.e. the US colonial government rather than the British government) wasn't overthrown. Our Continental Congress remained in power, our politicians were the same ones afterward as before, our institutions didn't change, and most importantly of all there wasn't a revolutionary force rebelling against the local government. For all intents and purposes the American Revolution was a sovereign nation repelling a foreign occupying force.

Two words: Fucking Israel.

__________________

Lord Larehip

What happens when we do nothing and another faction decides that they are going to use chemical weapons too. Then another, then another. That stuff gets into the oceans, into the wind and innocent countries can suffer the consequences.

Nearly every nation has signed and ratified the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction in the Hague. Two have signed but not ratified--Myanmar and Israel. Here are the rest that haven't done either: North Korea, Angola, South Sudan, Egypt and Syria. Those five just happen to be the most volatile places on earth. And I'm sure if we sit back and do nothing there's no chance this will escalate--naaaaaw, couldn't happen.

It's a perfectly horrible idea. But even that is better than no idea. We have to show these nations who are willing to use chemical weapons that we will f-uck them up and drag ourselves into another hopeless war if that's what they really want.

But, again, I want to make clear that this is based on the use of chemical weapons being proved beyond a doubt. We're idiots if we allow ourselves to get sucked into another WMD bulls-hit wild goose chase. If it's just a bombs and bullets war then f-uck it. I want nothing to do with it.

Everything from our end of it. The world is still sore about us invading Iraq over non-existent WMD. We cannot go into Syria using the same rationale unless it is proven to the world beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Bush's war cost us $120 BILLION dollars a day, killed over 100,000 innocent people, allowed thieves called "contractors" to steal billions from the US Treasury that will never be recovered, destroyed the lives of countless soldiers, lost us any hope of winning in Afghanistan, allowed Iran to rise up unchecked, precipitated the financial meltdown that tanked our economy--and you're worried about what happening?

The Batlord

I'd just like to point out that they already had chemical weapons and they already had ties to terrorists. If they were going to give them to said terrorists then I'm sure they would have done so already. How they use them in their own country is not my business. If we can trace chemical weapons used in an international attack back to Syrian involvement then we can talk about that, but as it stands now I don't think it's worth it.


I have no idea what point you're making. Is that supposed to be an argument FOR going into Syria? If not, then I'm on board. I want no part of another cluster ****.

__________________

John Wilkes Booth

The idea that America can manage every wayward regime with its military might is really starting to get us in trouble. At the end of the day the real reason Obama has to strike is because to not strike will make America appear weak, especially since he already went running his mouth about it.

We'll just see how this works out. A few strategical strikes, right? What're they gonna do? They can't bomb the stockpiles for obvious reasons. They say they're not in favor of regime change (because they're rightfully scared of the rebels) yet to weaken to army will certainly tip the scale against the regime. If the regime does fall then the weapons don't simply disappear, they fall into the hands of the rebels. It seems very unlikely that a few strikes is going to solve much of anything at all.

Lord Larehip

And you know they haven't because...?

Agreed. But we know it won't end there. don't we? It never does. If we learned anything at all from 9-11, it should have been that.

So we'll just wait until that happens. That last time we did that, we ended up in a full-scale war--exactly where you don't want to be. And you know what they say about definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Forget about Syria. We're going into Syria now no matter what--that's a done deal and nothing is going to change it no matter what happens. I'm talking about future regimes getting bright ideas about using chemical weapons. We have to show them that this will happen to them too. Yes, it sucks for us--it f-ucking blows. But the effects are way worse on them and if that's what they want to drag to their doorsteps then start dragging. But as for going into Syria--that isn't worth debating. We're going.

John Wilkes Booth

Who do you think Syria is going to attack with chemical weapons? I can't imagine who else Assad's regime would have the incentive of attacking right now besides the people trying to oust him.

Lord Larehip

We're talking about Muslims. You can't expect logical thinking from these people. Who will they gas next? That's exactly the problem--who the f-uck knows??

You can't attribute logical motives into the heads of people who are encouraged if not mandated to think irrationally at least I sure wouldn't recommend it.

John Wilkes Booth

Nonsense. You need to come up with something better than "Muslims are crazy!" to support the argument you're trying to make.