Syria

[Baloo]

I stand with my original post on this thread. The world has too many problems and as much as Americans want to believe, they can't answer them all.

[puddingkip]

I stand with my original post on this thread. The world has too many problems and as much as Americans want to believe, they can't answer to half of them and caused 80% of them

ftfy

[Karam]

Yay. It's now clear that the U.S.A. has no proof Assad did the chemical attack, which isn't surprising at all. Assad wouldn't benefit from the attack, he'd be attacked foreign nations and most likely killed. The rebels had so much to gain from a chemical attack. The man they're fighting would be overthrown, and they would get the power. I hope America doesn't intervene. Not because I like Assad, I really dislike him and he's a bastard. Sadly the rebels are worse. So leaving him saves money, people and a lot of trouble. Let them fight out themselves. I feel bad for the normal Syrian, but the only thing "we" can do is support the refugees and build good camps.

 

We should NOT give the rebels weapons, as we don't know who we are giving them to. The CIA already once gave weapons to a certain man called Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians. That didn't really go well.

 

Until the Jihadists are gone from the rebel army, no support for the rebels

 

Media =/= Reality.

 

If Asaad didn't do the chemical attack, then who did it ? The "Free Army" has no benefit of the chemical attack, and if they did, why are they fighting against him anyway ? Anyhow, ofcourse they won't have any evidence because they don't have their media there nor any of them is actually living there to see the massacre that happened. For your knowledge, Asaad is NOT a syrian, he is Iranian anyway, and to recall a history thing for you, in 1982 his father did a massacre against Syrians too, but there was no media back then.

 

Should America bomb syria ? No. I am totally against it, america has 0 things to do with what is going on right now, BUT, many of the countries (China,Russia,Iran etc.) are fighting and giving money/weapons to Asaad because they want him to stay as president as he is benefiting them.

[puddingkip]

Media =/= Reality.

 

If Asaad didn't do the chemical attack, then who did it ? The "Free Army" has no benefit of the chemical attack, and if they did, why are they fighting against him anyway ? Anyhow, ofcourse they won't have any evidence because they don't have their media there nor any of them is actually living there to see the massacre that happened. For your knowledge, Asaad is NOT a syrian, he is Iranian anyway, and to recall a history thing for you, in 1982 his father did a massacre against Syrians too, but there was no media back then.

 

Should America bomb syria ? No. I am totally against it, america has 0 things to do with what is going on right now, BUT, many of the countries (China,Russia,Iran etc.) are fighting and giving money/weapons to Asaad because they want him to stay as president as he is benefiting them.

Well, I simply used a tactic introduced by Seneca, one of the most famous lawyers in history. "Qui bono" (who benefits, for those of you without any knowledge of Latin). Assad most certainly did NOT benefit from the attack, and it was pretty clear he wouldn't. Therefore I find it hard to believe he did it. I got no proof to back this up, I know. And I also do believe the majority of the rebels want the best thing for Syria (and the rest of the world): peace. However there are certain parts of the "Free Army" that does have major benefits of the attack. If they make the rest of the world believe Assad did it, everybody will oppose Assad. As they're currently losing the war, they hope to get more and better supplies, weapons and maybe a western intervention.

 

Don't say America has nothing to do with it, there was a story that Snowden leaked about the C.I.A, dropping weapons there. But I must agree others, (France, Russia and China) are far more involved. I did not know about Assad being Iranian, but I did know he had a lot of support from Iran and was of a religious group popular nowhere but Iran (the Alawits?) who are a minority in Syria. However as far as I can find he is not born in Iran, but maybe he is of Iranian descent, I'll believe you know that stuff (being a Syrian and all)

 

Sadly for the Syrians this was has become not anymore about Syria but about geopolitics (control of the pipeline planned to stop Russian gas monopoly in Europe) and because Syria simply has a strategic position.

 

Please do not accuse me of following the media, the only thing they do is blackmail Assad. 

[♠Derpeh♤]

Well, I simply used a tactic introduced by Seneca, one of the most famous lawyers in history. "Qui bono" (who benefits, for those of you without any knowledge of Latin). Assad most certainly did NOT benefit from the attack, and it was pretty clear he wouldn't. Therefore I find it hard to believe he did it. I got no proof to back this up, I know.

 

Hasnt America sorta been just waiting for a war to happen? To me seems like an excuse to start one based on near zero evidence

 

War = selling weapons = growth

 

Just my opinion dont be offended for anyone who is overly patriotic

[F CHARLIE]

America should be using the money for America rather than using it to fund another war we don't need.

 

 

My question was limited to just a strike on Chemical weapons and the ability to deploy them.  Not a war.

 

 

Yay. It's now clear that the U.S.A. has no proof Assad did the chemical attack, which isn't surprising at all. Assad wouldn't benefit from the attack, he'd be attacked foreign nations and most likely killed. The rebels had so much to gain from a chemical attack. The man they're fighting would be overthrown, and they would get the power. I hope America doesn't intervene. Not because I like Assad, I really dislike him and he's a bastard. Sadly the rebels are worse. So leaving him saves money, people and a lot of trouble. Let them fight out themselves. I feel bad for the normal Syrian, but the only thing "we" can do is support the refugees and build good camps.

 

We should NOT give the rebels weapons, as we don't know who we are giving them to. The CIA already once gave weapons to a certain man called Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians. That didn't really go well.

 

Until the Jihadists are gone from the rebel army, no support for the rebels

 

 

So hair/blood samples are not enough.  UN inspectors being shot at the day of the gas attack.  Yes its beneficial to Assad to gas the neighborhoods.  Tactically speaking it is easier than door to door fighting and shelling.  This question is only about the strike on chemical weapon and the ability to use them.  As far as Jihadists are concerned, we (UK, France, US) should have help the uprising in its early days but allowed ourselves to get blocked by the Russians and now Alqueda may have infiltrated the opposition but that is not what this strike is about.

 

 

I am sarcastic 99.95% of the time, just stay serious here and in gen. discussion. Now back to topic: Obama is pussying out of his "red line" and "ultimatum" now that it has become clear he has no proof. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/john-kerry-syria_n_3892719.html but he's canceling that already, but only got the Dutch article (of which I couldn't find the source, but uhm for chrome auto-translate http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/3570758/ultimatum-syrisch-regime-was-niet-letterlijk.html . Also Assad is now threatening America. Sigh, will he ever learn? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/assad-interview-charlie-rose_n_3893510.html

 

 

If you paid attention I said that chemical weapons use has been internationally banned since 1889.  That is the Red line.  Assad says we have no proof. Besides samples I am pretty certain we have subservience from satellites.  Yes, Assad has threatened us but now appears to be willing to surrender his weapons to international control.

 

 

I stand with my original post on this thread. The world has too many problems and as much as Americans want to believe, they can't answer them all.

 

 

I am already aware that you have grown up caring little for what happens outside your personal space.  For everyone with this sentiment, please understand that our economy is highly dependent on global events so your futures are entangled with the conflict that exist in the Middle East.  Yes, this conflict is part of a larger conflict between groups that comprise the region and part of this conflict is Britain's fault in how they drew the borders of these countries many years ago thus all of us have been entangled with this for a long time.

 

 

Hasnt America sorta been just waiting for a war to happen? To me seems like an excuse to start one based on near zero evidence

 

War = selling weapons = growth

 

Just my opinion dont be offended for anyone who is overly patriotic

 

 

Wars end up being costly on many levels and not something we really want, contrary to opinions of some.  Weapons sales are more important to the Russians even tho that, apparently, is not why they oppose Assad's fall.

[puddingkip]

So hair/blood samples are not enough.  UN inspectors being shot at the day of the gas attack.  Yes its beneficial to Assad to gas the neighborhoods.  Tactically speaking it is easier than door to door fighting and shelling.  This question is only about the strike on chemical weapon and the ability to use them.  As far as Jihadists are concerned, we (UK, France, US) should have help the uprising in its early days but allowed ourselves to get blocked by the Russians and now Alqueda may have infiltrated the opposition but that is not what this strike is about.

 

If you paid attention I said that chemical weapons use has been internationally banned since 1889.  That is the Red line.  Assad says we have no proof. Besides samples I am pretty certain we have subservience from satellites.  Yes, Assad has threatened us but now appears to be willing to surrender his weapons to international control.

 

Part of this conflict is Britain's fault in how they drew the borders of these countries many years ago thus all of us have been entangled with this for a long time.

 

Uhm, except that Assad didn't need to use those chem weapons. He has more men, better trained and WAYYY better equipped. And well the part that rebels were arrested a month before the attack in Turkey with gas cannisters doesn't help their case. And in the early days, it wasn't a war. It were protests, and intervening during protests is wayy too risky

 

That's not true. Chemical weapons were firstly used in 1917, by the German army in the Western front of WW1. After that they were banned by the prototype of the UN, but many countries didn't want to (USA) or weren't allowed to (Germany) join. So it wasn't banned by the whole world. Italy used gas attacks in their conquest of Ethiopia, in the 1930's. The American army used it in Vietnam, even though they DID sign a treaty banning the use. Also satellite proof doesn't sound logical as if to WHO shot the gas canisters. Nobody is arguing if they were used, just by who. 

 

Not fair blaming Britain. Syria was a French mandate territory. The Brits did many things wrong, not this one.

[The 4th Harbringer]

 

I am already aware that you have grown up caring little for what happens outside your personal space.  For everyone with this sentiment, please understand that our economy is highly dependent on global events so your futures are entangled with the conflict that exist in the Middle East.  Yes, this conflict is part of a larger conflict between groups that comprise the region and part of this conflict is Britain's fault in how they drew the borders of these countries many years ago thus all of us have been entangled with this for a long time.

 

^^^^^^^  This right here x100

 

We have so many economic interests in the Middle East it's not funny.  Even if you're from another country other than the US, yours is probably tied to the Middle East as well, and if not, you're definitely at least tied to the US, which is tied to the Middle East.

[Silent Scream]

Ah, Syria.

 

Despite not knowing a whole lot, I'm still torn over this.

 

The zealous side of me wants us to go to war to "free the oppressed".

 

The Humanitarian side of me predicts Vietnam War 2.0.

 

I'll just sit back and watch.

[F CHARLIE]

Uhm, except that Assad didn't need to use those chem weapons. He has more men, better trained and WAYYY better equipped. And well the part that rebels were arrested a month before the attack in Turkey with gas cannisters doesn't help their case. And in the early days, it wasn't a war. It were protests, and intervening during protests is wayy too risky

 

That's not true. Chemical weapons were firstly used in 1917, by the German army in the Western front of WW1. After that they were banned by the prototype of the UN, but many countries didn't want to (USA) or weren't allowed to (Germany) join. So it wasn't banned by the whole world. Italy used gas attacks in their conquest of Ethiopia, in the 1930's. The American army used it in Vietnam, even though they DID sign a treaty banning the use. Also satellite proof doesn't sound logical as if to WHO shot the gas canisters. Nobody is arguing if they were used, just by who. 

 

Not fair blaming Britain. Syria was a French mandate territory. The Brits did many things wrong, not this one.

 

 

The rebels stand to lose more as the international community, USA included, will not enter the war and gasing their own people would be devestating. Assad certainly would use them if he felt safe doing so. He needs this over faster before he loses control to hamas.

 

The ban predates the existance og chemical weapons. An 1899 convention in the Hague banned them but I don't think nations took it that seriously until after WW1. Yes, it was used just prior to WW2 but in that war no one wanted to use them in order to avoid what happened in WW1. They have been used several times since. Mainly by leaders against their own people. Napalm is not technically a weapon meant to be used against forces but instead to clear forested areas but yeah. US Congress has already accepted that Assad did the attack based on evidence shown to them.

 

Sorry, forgot France, but both of those countries were responsible for drawing thd boarders in the Middle East. I believe this was due to taking possesion of the Ottoman Empire post WW1.

 

Also, the US did not join t huh e League of Nations because of internal politics even tho we conceived it.

[Professional Map Painter]

Sorry, forgot France, but both of those countries were responsible for drawing thd boarders in the Middle East. I believe this was due to taking possesion of the Ottoman Empire post WW1.

Britain didn't draw the borders, it stopped Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy from taking over the region. Only after the countries were granted independence did the wars start again, and conflict in the Middle east has existed since the fall of the Roman Empire. Even before WW1, Napoleon had his eyes on the Middle East.

 

Also, the US did not join t huh e League of Nations because of internal politics even tho we conceived it.

And that is one of the causes of World War Two. The US was also responsible for forcing open the borders of Japan and selling them modern weapons (and later repeating this mistake by arming the Mujahadeen), much like Russia selling Assad weapons. If the US does intervene it may turn into another failure like Vietnam, and not a success like the Falklands or Iraq. Whilst Assad is a monster, these Arab revolutions have strong similarities to the French and Roman revolutions (there is a democracy, but a replacement dictator e.g Caesar appears shortly afterwards). Egypt is already back under military control and Libya is in anarchy. We supported them and in return they kill our ambassadors and desecrate the graves of British soldiers who fought to stop the very kind of oppressive government they wanted to overthrow. Assad is getting a lot of attention, but noone is doing anything about Robert Mugabe. It's a choice between dictatorship or anarchy.

[puddingkip]

Britain didn't draw the borders, it stopped Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy from taking over the region. Only after the countries were granted independence did the wars start again, and conflict in the Middle east has existed since the fall of the Roman Empire. Even before WW1, Napoleon had his eyes on the Middle East.

Like for real? Nazi Germany?? Britain and France took the middle east in WW1 from the Ottoman Empire, who had joined the Austrians and Germans to beat the Russians. Ottomans and Russians both collapsed, and Turkey and modern Russia arose. Nothing to do with Nazi Germany, which came to power in 1933/1934 (depends on what you count as coming to power). Fascist Italy also rose past WW1, as the start of it, Mussolini's march on Rome was in 1922. These borders had nothing to do with Nazi Germany (a little bit with Imperial germany) and nothing at all with Italy. 

[Professional Map Painter]

Like for real? Nazi Germany?? Britain and France took the middle east in WW1 from the Ottoman Empire

I'm not saying colonialism is a good thing, but there was a reason Ottoman Turkey was known as "The Sick Man of Europe". Land was simply transferred from one empire to another, as had been happening for centuries. Britiain has had it's fair share of atrocities, but the Ottomans have also committed cruel acts as well. 

 

who had joined the Austrians and Germans to beat the Russians. Ottomans and Russians both collapsed, and Turkey and modern Russia arose. Nothing to do with Nazi Germany, which came to power in 1933/1934 (depends on what you count as coming to power). Fascist Italy also rose past WW1, as the start of it, Mussolini's march on Rome was in 1922. These borders had nothing to do with Nazi Germany (a little bit with Imperial germany) and nothing at all with Italy. 

Ottoman Turkey decided to join Germany as both powers had plans to acquire even more land. The assassination of one man kickstarted the invasion plans of other countries, and whilst Britain and France at first acted in defence, they then decided to acquire more colonies. Not exactly the best thing to do, but the Ottoman Empire collapsed due to infighting. Creating Israel after World War 2 didn't exactly help either, but the Jews deserved something for the suffering they faced during WW2. Afaik, the borders weren't altered (besides Israel, but that was a UN decision), only defended from enemies like Nazi Germany. And then later granted independence (and rightfully so).

[F CHARLIE]

And that is one of the causes of World War Two. The US was also responsible for forcing open the borders of Japan and selling them modern weapons (and later repeating this mistake by arming the Mujahadeen), much like Russia selling Assad weapons. If the US does intervene it may turn into another failure like Vietnam, and not a success like the Falklands or Iraq. Whilst Assad is a monster, these Arab revolutions have strong similarities to the French and Roman revolutions (there is a democracy, but a replacement dictator e.g Caesar appears shortly afterwards). Egypt is already back under military control and Libya is in anarchy. We supported them and in return they kill our ambassadors and desecrate the graves of British soldiers who fought to stop the very kind of oppressive government they wanted to overthrow. Assad is getting a lot of attention, but noone is doing anything about Robert Mugabe. It's a choice between dictatorship or anarchy.

  

 

 

Japan made the decision to enter the modern age. They were a highly organized agrarian/craft economy and held off the industrial revolution for a long time but needed to modernize because of pressure of the world getting smaller. They bought a lot from the he USA including scrap steel that became their armada that attacked us. Libya is doing very well in its transition and Egypt had a huge issue trying to integrate progressive and conservative sentiments inside its country.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying colonialism is a good thing, but there was a reason Ottoman Turkey was known as "The Sick Man of Europe". Land was simply transferred from one empire to another, as had been happening for centuries. Britiain has had it's fair share of atrocities, but the Ottomans have also committed cruel acts as well. 

 

 

Ottoman Turkey decided to join Germany as both powers had plans to acquire even more land. The assassination of one man kickstarted the invasion plans of other countries, and whilst Britain and France at first acted in defence, they then decided to acquire more colonies. Not exactly the best thing to do, but the Ottoman Empire collapsed due to infighting. Creating Israel after World War 2 didn't exactly help either, but the Jews deserved something for the suffering they faced during WW2. Afaik, the borders weren't altered (besides Israel, but that was a UN decision), only defended from enemies like Nazi Germany. And then later granted independence (and rightfully so).

 

In reality one assasination was not resposible for WW1. All of the nations involved truely believe they would be victorious and the war would be short. There really wasn't a reason to not ho to war in thier minds. There was a lot of resources at staje for these growing industrial economies so the major nations saw it as an oportunity to fill needs.

[Professional Map Painter]

  Japan made the decision to enter the modern age. They were a highly organized agrarian/craft economy and held off the industrial revolution for a long time but needed to modernize because of pressure of the world getting smaller. They bought a lot from the he USA including scrap steel that became their armada that attacked us. 

"Matthew C. Perry (1794–1858), American naval officer who forcibly opened Japan to trade with the West"

 

 

• In 1853, Perry was sent on a mission by President Millard Fillmore to establish trade with Japan – a country that had been isolated from the outside world since the 17^th century.
• In July of that same year, Perry leads a squadron of four ships into Tokyo Bay and presented representatives of the Japanese Emperor with the text of a proposed commercial and friendship treaty. The Japanese rejected Perry’s demands and Perry withdrew.
• Perry returned to Japan in February, 1854. This time he appears with seven ships - four sailing ships, three steamers – and one thousand, six hundred men.
• After a standoff, Perry landed for peace and trade talks on March 8, 1854, and began to negotiate with the Japanese to establish a trade agreement.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/pearl/kanagawa/friends4.htm

 

The US opened the way, and other countries soon followed. The Russians, British and French would all be at war with their former trade partners.

 

In reality one assasination was not resposible for WW1. All of the nations involved truely believe they would be victorious and the war would be short. There really wasn't a reason to not ho to war in thier minds. There was a lot of resources at staje for these growing industrial economies so the major nations saw it as an oportunity to fill needs.

Whilst they were planning for war and there had been arms races and imperial tensions, the assassination created the opportunity for there to be a "just cause" for war.

[∞Ramses]

Media =/= Reality.

 

If Asaad didn't do the chemical attack, then who did it ? The "Free Army" has no benefit of the chemical attack, and if they did, why are they fighting against him anyway ? Anyhow, ofcourse they won't have any evidence because they don't have their media there nor any of them is actually living there to see the massacre that happened. For your knowledge, Asaad is NOT a syrian, he is Iranian anyway, and to recall a history thing for you, in 1982 his father did a massacre against Syrians too, but there was no media back then.

 

Should America bomb syria ? No. I am totally against it, america has 0 things to do with what is going on right now, BUT, many of the countries (China,Russia,Iran etc.) are fighting and giving money/weapons to Asaad because they want him to stay as president as he is benefiting them.

 

Could have been terrorists...

 

You can't fight for peace, they will always be a (civil) war somewhere. It's not only Syria, but also Somalia, Ethiopia, ... are struggling with war and/or conflicts in the past decade. Therefore it should be stupid if America decided to bomb Syria.

[F CHARLIE]

"Matthew C. Perry (1794–1858), American naval officer who forcibly opened Japan to trade with the West"[/size]

 

 

 

• In 1853, Perry was sent on a mission by President Millard Fillmore to establish trade with Japan – a country that had been isolated from the outside world since the 17^th century.
• In July of that same year, Perry leads a squadron of four ships into Tokyo Bay and presented representatives of the Japanese Emperor with the text of a proposed commercial and friendship treaty. The Japanese rejected Perry’s demands and Perry withdrew.
• Perry returned to Japan in February, 1854. This time he appears with seven ships - four sailing ships, three steamers – and one thousand, six hundred men.
• After a standoff, Perry landed for peace and trade talks on March 8, 1854, and began to negotiate with the Japanese to establish a trade agreement.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/pearl/kanagawa/friends4.htm

 

The US opened the way, and other countries soon followed. The Russians, British and French would all be at war with their former trade partners.

 

 

 

My bad.

 

 

 

Whilst they were planning for war and there had been arms races and imperial tensions, the assassination created the opportunity for there to be a "just cause" for war.

 

If not that event then another. The imperial nations were waiting for a confrontation.

[F CHARLIE]

Great discussion on this. It appeears as if the potential of strikes against those weapons has forced Syria, by way of Russia, into this new option of placing the weapons into international control. I am pleased with that on several levels.

[puddingkip]

Could have been terrorists...

 

You can't fight for peace, they will always be a (civil) war somewhere. It's not only Syria, but also Somalia, Ethiopia, ... are struggling with war and/or conflicts in the past decade. Therefore it should be stupid if America decided to bomb Syria.

What's so civil about war anyways?

 

(quote from "civil war" by GnR)

 

Wars don't solve anything, they can only push other problems away from people's minds by creating new ones. (though complete annihilation of a people might actually solve some things, but that's not somehting that is to be done)

[Sir Scrake]

I know I already posted this on my status but I didn't know this thread existed before hand.

Anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnkjeiWa0I

[dixiecountry1971]

Team America vs Syria

[F CHARLIE]

What's so civil about war anyways?

 

(quote from "civil war" by GnR)

 

Wars don't solve anything, they can only push other problems away from people's minds by creating new ones. (though complete annihilation of a people might actually solve some things, but that's not somehting that is to be done)

 

 

 

War happens because of want.  Everyone wants, sometimes its something like a better life for themselves, sometimes its for their children or grand children.  You have less control over the outcome of your life and happiness then you really think you do.  You will have to sacrifice some wants for other wants and there comes a point when so many wants have been sacrificed to get so little that people just need to demand something better.  Many of you here don't understand this in a personal way and some of you do.  You can't stop people from want, without want we would not invent, work, love, build etc.  The life you have came because of want and war.  Other peoples wants conflict with your wants and sometimes they have more power in life and will have more of their wants fulfilled.  Its painful and lasts your entire life.  Maybe you can live with it but when you see your children and think they will live like this too then that effects your soul.

 

War is going to happen, it always will be here with us.

[♠Derpeh♤]

War happens because of want.  Everyone wants, sometimes its something like a better life for themselves, sometimes its for their children or grand children.  You have less control over the outcome of your life and happiness then you really think you do.  You will have to sacrifice some wants for other wants and there comes a point when so many wants have been sacrificed to get so little that people just need to demand something better.  Many of you here don't understand this in a personal way and some of you do.  You can't stop people from want, without want we would not invent, work, love, build etc.  The life you have came because of want and war.  Other peoples wants conflict with your wants and sometimes they have more power in life and will have more of their wants fulfilled.  Its painful and lasts your entire life.  Maybe you can live with it but when you see your children and think they will live like this too then that effects your soul.

 

War is going to happen, it always will be here with us.

Something which my economic teacher said:

 

"In our economy there is only so much money and resources. If I don't take some of yours where am I going to make a living?"

[F CHARLIE]

Something which my economic teacher said:

 

"In our economy there is only so much money and resources. If I don't take some of yours where am I going to make a living?"

 

As I said, want.