Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
Where are all the anti-war protestors now?
we still hate war . . .but i guess thats the quaker in me
Where are all the anti-war protestors now?
As do I. War is hell.we still hate war . . .but i guess thats the quaker in me
Move the civilians out, and let them kill each other. Problem solved.
god idea god...../not!
How is it that we can support a nation, provide weapons and money during the conflict, security, safety (through UN & NATO resolutions), then, a decade later, enact legislation and declarations of war against that very same country that used to be out ally?
Why don't American citizens know about proxy wars?
Afghanistan, 1980's, against the USSR, we weaponized them, we gave them money, to fight the Soviets.. the Soviets failed, the Afghans won, and held a considerable amount of goodies left over from the war.. Later, the Mujahideen took over, AQ and the Taliban came into a failed state, our weapons eventually were left in the hands of terrorists.. Today, we face the exact same shit in Syria.. "Should we arm the rebels?!" Fucking idiotic! Of course we shouldn't! What would be the difference? How can we be sure if we do, the Syrian state that comes to power won't become aggressive in the region later?
Exactly, we can't..
That's how I've solved problems in the past, not sure if you've read my book...
Your argument appears to be that because a nation is not supposed to use chemical weapons against their own people then we are justified in intervening even if those same "people" are using chemical weapons against their government.?.? BOTH sides are likely guilty in the use of chemical weapons from all I've read. Club meets club, gun meets gun.it's pretty clear that a lot of you are under many misconceptions about the impending military action.
it is not in support of one faction or the other, it is a retaliatory action against the use of WMDs on one's own people.
i may as well have made a fart joke though, that distinction will fall on deaf ears.
Your argument appears to be that because a nation is not supposed to use chemical weapons against their own people then we are justified in intervening even if those same "people" are using chemical weapons against their government.?.? BOTH sides are likely guilty in the use of chemical weapons from all I've read. Club meets club, gun meets gun.
Does it matter? Would you not expect a small radical group to use any means at their disposal to further their cause (thinking Tim McVeigh and OK City, Al-Qaeda and planes/buildings, Afghan and Iraqi rebels/IEDs, etc)? IF I were a part of such a small and radical group I would consider it as well. But your argument is like saying the rapist isn't as deserving of punishment as the rapist/murderer imo. I disagree.to what extent?
Move the civilians out, and let them kill each other. Problem solved.
Does it matter?
But your argument is like saying the rapist isn't as deserving of punishment as the rapist/murderer imo. I disagree.
Why would Assad invite Western response by using chem weapons in a war he was already winning?
and then fire on them and bomb the gassed site, let's not forget.
If that did happen Assad would feel the wrath of the US and it's allies and lose the war.
Why would he do this?
so you're saying assad didn't fire on the inspectors?
so you're saying assad didn't fire on the inspectors?
this is gonna be another in and out military action like libya.
there will certainly not be 4,000+ dead americans, 100k dead iraqis, and tens of thousands more injured, maimed, or suffering from PTSD.
someone wake me when there is a serious conflict rather than a UN-mandated retaliatory action.
A military action in SUPPORT of Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra. Just being clear on what's happening![]()
Turning the Shia-affiliated Alawi regime into a Sunni one that can be influenced would be a tremendous victory for the Gulf Arabs. It would weaken the Iranians and break the exaggerated but still very real threat of Shia encirclement Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. And thats why Riyadh is backing the rebels with money and arms and allowing individual Saudi clerics to sermonize about jihad and encourage non-Syrian foreign fighters to carry it out. This, of course has a potential downside. We saw the blowback in Afghanistan, where Saudi-inspired Wahhabi doctrine motivated a cadre of Arabs to fight first against the Russians and then against the West.
i believe the military action that's to come is not in support of anyone but rather in retalition for assad gassing his own people, in accordance with a UN treaty.