|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:47 pm
Can you all give me your at-first-glance perspectives of the Syrian (now also American) issue?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:14 am
Frankly the USA is being a c**t.
I understand that the situation is volatile and could spill over in unpleasant ways, but the USA isn't worth a ******** at quelling conflicts anymore. We've got a giant military d**k that can't get hard. It's big, sloppy, and we don't know how to put it to use. On occasion we will fingerbang something (special unit strike) where we actually show some military worth, but generally we're pathetic. The threat of US action isn't worth anything, so we should stop acting like we're hot s**t because most countries tolerate us because they don't want to chance the idea of our d**k managing an actual erection after they step on our toes. Nobody respects us though. So act a bit humble, work with the world instead of trying to police it. Don't play cop on Syria because it means nothing to them and would only serve to piss everyone off more.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:57 am
There's only like 3 people that don't live in America, I think? I don't really have an opinion since I'm not that invested in world happenings or watch the news that much but America needs to step the ******** off out of other countries businesses and sort out its own business first before going at war with some Middle Eastern "tough guys".
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:31 am
The US proving it is the number one warmongering and trigger happy nation in the world.
Haven't even finished the last war before you want to jump into another armed conflict, with " The possibility of ground forces" suggestion pitched and pondered about. What happens in Syria is a civil war and while I agree that chemical weapons are not to be used, attacking them at this point will only do more harm then good as it will cause ripples among allies with different stance on the matter. Better then to block trade embargos and sanction the Syrian government until one side wins or surrenders.
Might be cold but Civil wars has to be resolved by the country it is happening in, all we can do is offer humanitarian aid to the civilians and put pressure on both sides coming to a peaceful agreement to their dispute.
Not go in guns blazing as if you're some white knight defender of the world.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:05 pm
The problem lies in the fact that the UK threw its hands up before the conflict even really began. France ditched, too, like they always do when war a-happens. An overwhelming majority of our population does not want to do anything right now in regards to getting involved in Syrian issues. We just don't. But Syrian rebels call out, and the Obama administration thinks that we need to help them. Another issue is this; there are a lot of rumors that Al-Qaeda is linked with the rebellion in Syria. So the choice is ours if we choose to intervene. Much like Libya, there is a high risk of something even worse than Assad stepping into government once we get involved. However of course Obama's speech writers avoid talking about that since our diplomats died in Libya thanks to our actions. What seems to me to be happening right now is that Obama is trying to back down. It is a sobering realization for him that his own country is just absolutely pissed with him. An extreme minority of America supports the movement to attack. Whether it's Left Wing Liberals or Right Wing Conservatives, it seems that all of us have unanimously agreed that he has made us look like ********. I heard recently that there's a threat of impeachment. Not major, but even talk is concern to worry.
1. Now we look like complete fools. The Obama Administration thought we would support them since there seems to be a popular trend going. Why? "Because Obama". Now that no one supports them, it seems that they tried to buy time for the themselves so this wouldn't look like a black mark on his presidency. But it does. Congress will take months to work through this s**t, and Obama has made us look weak by putting it off. Of course the U.S. constitution declares that all declarations of war must be agreed upon by Congress but that hasn't been applied since WWII. This will change everything for future presidencies. To top it all off, now he as halted the decision making progress by Congress to await the results of the recent Russian proposition to Syria (which it again seems the President's party is taking all accreditation for). But why would Syria expose all their weapons to the world? This is ridiculous. It won't go through. But it seems to me that the President is attempting to buy time so that he can wait for the whole crisis to cool down. That way he won't have to do anything.
2. The other issue is that International Law declares that chemical weapons used in warfare is illegal. This is obviously due to the use of Mustard Gas in WWI and how crippling it was for generations afterwards. Since both the UK and France (who both said they would help us) have backed down, the President has decided to take it into his own hands to lead the way. Especially since he drew the "red-line". So the threat of Chemical Weapons being used in the next war if we don't do anything seems very high. Especially to me. Especially after Iraq.
The last thing I want is for the U.S. military to deploy troops on foot. But now we come off as fools either way. I was thinking air strikes may be sufficient, but that's what we said with Libya and look what happened there. Why doesn't the rest of the world do anything?
TLDR; every American is pissed with the way our government is handling this situation. Including myself.
EDIT: My apologizes if I offended any of you with my choice of wording. My skills include fast typing associated with slow thinking. I'm angry, but not at the rest of the world. Just my own government for handling this so poorly. I am not attacking any other countries in this argument. If it comes off that way...well, here's the apology.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:26 pm
Scarletgreen Why doesn't the rest of the world do anything? The rest of the world are doing things, it's called applying pressure on the Syrian Government and sanctions while demanding both sides to lay down their arms and come to an agreement they can both live it. Even more so now with the Chemical weapons use and that Russia is putting leverage on the Syrian government now.
Once again, going in guns blazing will often do more damage then good both to the country in conflict and the ones participating. In some cases it is required but that should always be a last resort and if the consensus agrees upon it within the UN and NATO.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:11 pm
The Almighty Ali Scarletgreen Why doesn't the rest of the world do anything? The rest of the world are doing things, it's called applying pressure on the Syrian Government and sanctions while demanding both sides to lay down their arms and come to an agreement they can both live it. Even more so now with the Chemical weapons use and that Russia is putting leverage on the Syrian government now.
Once again, going in guns blazing will often do more damage then good both to the country in conflict and the ones participating. In some cases it is required but that should always be a last resort and if the consensus agrees upon it within the UN and NATO.
The world was applying pressure even before Syria released the chemical weapons and it didn't seem to do much. The only talk that has caused any significant change was the Russian proposition - and that's because Russia is Syria's closest ally.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:42 pm
Scarletgreen The Almighty Ali Scarletgreen Why doesn't the rest of the world do anything? The rest of the world are doing things, it's called applying pressure on the Syrian Government and sanctions while demanding both sides to lay down their arms and come to an agreement they can both live it. Even more so now with the Chemical weapons use and that Russia is putting leverage on the Syrian government now.
Once again, going in guns blazing will often do more damage then good both to the country in conflict and the ones participating. In some cases it is required but that should always be a last resort and if the consensus agrees upon it within the UN and NATO.
The world was applying pressure even before Syria released the chemical weapons and it didn't seem to do much. The only talk that has caused any significant change was the Russian proposition - and that's because Russia is Syria's closest ally. Which means Russia's opinion means a damn to them, they don't care about us and our muscle flexing is only making Syria brace itself for more conflict. In other words, we're not helping by whipping our military d**k out.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:27 pm
Pavilo Scarletgreen The Almighty Ali Scarletgreen Why doesn't the rest of the world do anything? The rest of the world are doing things, it's called applying pressure on the Syrian Government and sanctions while demanding both sides to lay down their arms and come to an agreement they can both live it. Even more so now with the Chemical weapons use and that Russia is putting leverage on the Syrian government now.
Once again, going in guns blazing will often do more damage then good both to the country in conflict and the ones participating. In some cases it is required but that should always be a last resort and if the consensus agrees upon it within the UN and NATO.
The world was applying pressure even before Syria released the chemical weapons and it didn't seem to do much. The only talk that has caused any significant change was the Russian proposition - and that's because Russia is Syria's closest ally. Which means Russia's opinion means a damn to them, they don't care about us and our muscle flexing is only making Syria brace itself for more conflict. In other words, we're not helping by whipping our military d**k out. True. I'm still relatively on the fence but am finding myself primarily anti attack.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:17 am
Scarletgreen The Almighty Ali Scarletgreen Why doesn't the rest of the world do anything? The rest of the world are doing things, it's called applying pressure on the Syrian Government and sanctions while demanding both sides to lay down their arms and come to an agreement they can both live it. Even more so now with the Chemical weapons use and that Russia is putting leverage on the Syrian government now.
Once again, going in guns blazing will often do more damage then good both to the country in conflict and the ones participating. In some cases it is required but that should always be a last resort and if the consensus agrees upon it within the UN and NATO.
The world was applying pressure even before Syria released the chemical weapons and it didn't seem to do much. The only talk that has caused any significant change was the Russian proposition - and that's because Russia is Syria's closest ally. Of course. But Russia started to apply pressure cause the world not only applied pressure on Syria but also Russia on their lack of even mentioning the issue. Now that they are it is proof that diplomacy works, if the entire conflict is resolved eventually as a result of the world continuing to demand both sides to reach an agreement and lay down their arms then all the better.
Look at it this way, Say the US attacked. Would Russia get angry? Of course. Would Europe be splitt on the matter and start bickering cause some are closer allies to Russia and others are closer allies to the US? Yes. Would the conflict escalate and possibly move to the countries next to Syria aswell thus causing more damage? Very highly likely.
Flexing muscles and rolling in with military strenght might work in some cases, but Diplomacy usually tend to work better in resovling issues and conflicts more then bullets and bombs do.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|