Hey Obama

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Sachaztan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-should-have-been-traumatised-into-action-by-this-war-in-2011and-2012but-now-8789506.html

Great article about the situation

[Masacree]

I hope you know that the onion is a satirical website

"We should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."

- Nietzsche

[AmPM]

Hey, does somebody want to explain all of my "liberal" friends who claimed "they were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before we went in" but now want to bomb the shit out of Syria.

They post shit like: "Silence in the face of atrocity is not neutrality; silence in the face of atrocity is acquiescence." Samantha Power. Apparently not for the Iraqi's though!

WTF

It's not that liberals won't go to war, it's just that they only go to war for reasons they perceive as worthwhile, so animal cruelty, human rights, whether or not that leader made fun of someones skin tone, or women are not more equal than men. This really goes for both wings, the left and the right, they just have different bullshit reasons.

War is war, no matter the reason behind it. It is also a necessity in the current age to back up your mouth with actions on a political arena. If you don't want people using chemical weapons, and someone does use them, the UN sitting around and discussing it is meaningless. It is the ultimate expression of a nation's will to put it's money where it's mouth is.

Syria went sideways, it's a nasty mire of Islamic extremists, an evil dictatorship, and the people stuck in the middle that really want nothing more than to continue with their lives and be left alone. The faster it can be brought to heel the better.

Iraq still has problems, because that nation is fractured along ideological lines, and has foreign fighters flooding into the country, same with Afghanistan (lots of Chechan fighters there).

People are ready to fight wars. They are not ready to rebuild nations and peoples afterwards. That's the part that is sad. You can't change a culture of desperation and violence quickly, it requires generations.

[deadbolt]

[Unkn0wn]

What a bullshit western intervention this would be. Assad has been bombing his people for over a year now, hundreds of thousands have died and we hardly gave a shit, yet somehow only now, when chemical weapons get used, we are totally outraged and want to intervene. What a crude arbitrary line to draw that is. Not to mention that the US of all nations really isn't the one that has any right to be outraged over violations of international law...

Intervention in Syria, with missiles or otherwise won't change a god damn thing, the only purpose it would serve is to make certain people feel better. It sure as help can't be for any realpolitikal reasons because these rebel forces are just as bad for the region as Assad.

[AmPM]

What a bullshit western intervention this would be. Assad has been bombing his people for over a year now, hundreds of thousands have died and we hardly gave a shit, yet somehow only now, when chemical weapons get used, we are totally outraged and want to intervene. What a crude arbitrary line to draw that is. Not to mention that the US of all nations really isn't the one that has any right to be outraged over violations of international law...

Intervention in Syria, with missiles or otherwise won't change a god damn thing, the only purpose it would serve is to make certain people feel better. It sure as help can't be for any realpolitikal reasons because these rebel forces are just as bad for the region as Assad.

I agree, it would be a waste of time, money and lives to go in, replace one shitty system with another, and then leave without accomplishing anything.

I'm of the notion to ignore the Middle East entirely, let it go to hell, and worry about the Pacific. It's not like Iran is a threat to the US, it's range is pretty limited to it's neighbors and southern Europe.

[NightRain]

And Capitalistic arms manufactors go AWWWYEAAAAH at these news.

[Shabtajus]

its like 4 pictures posted here by deadbolt but aint nobody gave a single fuck, yea this thread is to serious

[skaffa]

Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many

- Publilius Syrus


Send in the Special Forces! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J1ctr877qs

[Mysthalin]

Eh, I'd personally support a bombing campaign in Syria - much akin to the one done in Lybia. Soldiers on the ground intervention? Although it would probably make DICE/EA and Infinity Ward shit their pants in joy since they would get to re-skin and re-release their franchises (much like NBA 201x, FIFA 201x) it would not really be a good idea.

It is correct that a lot of the rebels are islamists and probably even more of them are nationalists. Although they would welcome the help when it would come, and be very friendly until Assad was overthrown - friendliness would soon turn sour if Western feet didn't leave Syrian soil as soon as Assad is dead/gone - and these rebel groups which are somewhat splintered now might come together to fight a new "common enemy" - and at that point the ones who show the West the most hate would be the ones leading the pack.

Overthrow Assad by giving the rebels just basic Air/Artillery Support and you earn at least some gratitude from the rebels. There would be no "legitimacy" for anyone to take charge over the others just because they're slightly bigger and hate a common enemy a bit more. It would be done with - they could focus on re-building and restoring order. Mayhaps they wouldn't send flowers to the West - after all, it's taken us long enough to even acknowledge that the rebels need help. But they won't be planting IED's alongside their roads to blow up Marine patrols either.

[nikomas]

^

[DarkSoldierX]

You two paint a very pretty picture for a grim situation. I really doubt the Islamist would die down, they want to build Syria with a religious leader as a secondary goal of the war, and theres no reason for them to give that dream up. Theres too many foreign fighters and brigade leaders in that area who look for more than just a ousted Assad.


And even if you were right, the US is far too war weary to enter in another billion dollar series of air strikes. Even if we entered some sort of economy bombing it would still be a hundreds of millions of dollars, for a outcome which we don't know is guaranteed. We have no real control over the outcome.

[Baine]

We saw how well stabilization can go after taking down tyranns, just look at egypt...

[Spartan_Marine88]

Im not sure if its true for syria but American people should stop bitching about cleaning up thier messes.

Chile was a pleasant place nice and free, so America put Pinochet in charge.  A few million people go missing and the Americans finally reestablish the democracy they destroyed.

Iraq a nice democracy,  but hey America thought they knew a better way.  Oh the rage when it turned out Papa Saddam wasn't so good.  What right did we have to go in there in force,  they should have a right to decide thier own government,  oh wait they had. ..

 Since ww2 and even before western interests have created and aggravated the middle east and elsewhere for our own interests causing much bloodshed. But when it comes timbre to man up and fix what was broke we like to forget or ignore the hand that stirred the pot.

[Groundfire]

spartan, I think you are under the assumption that the American government and it's foreign policy listens to and/or carries out the wishes of the american people.

It does not. It practically acts autonomously and separate now. We have to "Fight" with the president to even allow congress to have a vote on the issue. And even then, the man was elected to protect the status-quo, which he's doing nicely.

I think we have a legitimate right to bitch about what our government does in our name but without our consent.

[PonySlaystation]

Chile was a pleasant place nice and free, so America put Pinochet in charge.  A few million people go missing and the Americans finally reestablish the democracy they destroyed.

Because they were fighting a cold war?

Iraq a nice democracy,  but hey America thought they knew a better way.  Oh the rage when it turned out Papa Saddam wasn't so good.  What right did we have to go in there in force,  they should have a right to decide thier own government,  oh wait they had. ..

Iraq was never a democracy.

[Tymathee]

I dont care, the Syria's can bomb themselves into a smoking crater, the middle east would be better off for it.

One side is supported by Russian and Iran, the other by Al Qaeda, why in the world would we want either to win?

tbh, we should be supporting Assad, its the Muslim Brotherhood on the side of the rebels and we see how that worked out in Egypt, that went swimmingly.

As much as I support democrats in domestic policies, their foreign "don't touch until the they have 3rd degree burns" way of intervention is frustrating (speaking of Clinton and Obama).

They also seem to horribly support the wrong side, then again Regan, Bush I and Bush II weren't all that great either...

Someone tell me again, why must we be the World Police, isn't that what the UN is for?

[NightRain]

Someone tell me again, why must we be the World Police, isn't that what the UN is for?

to protect America's peen. Also national security. If a kid pops a fire cracker USA attacks said country because their national safety is at risk.

Though in all honesty western civilization could leave middle east alone and watch them slaughter and kill one another until one form of a power remains. The most powerful power of course and once they have rebalanced the economy and lives should there be contact again.

[Shabtajus]

nah just bearsoul is too pro for u to handle, he hunted all ya vet lol, and dont lie that u let him to do it, too many feels now

[CrazyWR]

I dont care, the Syria's can bomb themselves into a smoking crater, the middle east would be better off for it.

One side is supported by Russian and Iran, the other by Al Qaeda, why in the world would we want either to win?

tbh, we should be supporting Assad, its the Muslim Brotherhood on the side of the rebels and we see how that worked out in Egypt, that went swimmingly.

As much as I support democrats in domestic policies, their foreign "don't touch until the they have 3rd degree burns" way of intervention is frustrating (speaking of Clinton and Obama).

They also seem to horribly support the wrong side, then again Regan, Bush I and Bush II weren't all that great either...

Someone tell me again, why must we be the World Police, isn't that what the UN is for?

have you seen a list of the atrocities the Assad regime has committed?