What's new
By:

Will there be American invasion in Syria?

ElRoach0 said:
This is your stance. Not what you would do.

And theres kind of a little difference between child labor and chemical warfare. Don't get me wrong, both are awful, but chemical warfare has higher stakes

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.
Click to expand...

Read it again.

It is both what I would do and why.

Child Soldiers!!!
 
ElRoach0 said:
No. Were not helping a side. That's not what were after.

We're after getting rid of chemical warfare. Helping one side or the other is the byproduct of what we ARE after.

Sent from your moms room.... While she was sleeping.
Click to expand...
I really think you are being a smidgeon naive.
 
The Thriller said:
The issue here isn't whether or not Syria has WMDs. If we were to attack every country who has WMDs then we'd be off to war against Russia, China, and many of our most closest allies. Hell, we would have to bomb ourselves since we are one of the world's leaders in WMDs!

The issue is Asswad using them. Now what proof do we have that he even used them? Has the UN report proven that yet or does it have yet to come in? Now why would Asswad even need to use them? How do we know that Al-Queda didn't obtain them and use them in some Syrians? Or framed Asswad? How do we know for sure that they were even used?

To me, lets call their bluff. If we do nothing, then their plan to have us do their fighting against Asswad for them will have backfired. If we do nothing but it really was Asswad? Meh. Who cares? As long as he doesn't do it again who cares? Ultimately, our message was sent and received. If we do nothing and he does it again, then we will have a surety that he really is a jerk face and maybe just maybe someone closer to the situation will fix him for us. Does Putin really want to be seen by the international community as a supporter of a serial gasser?
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was Assad. Only provided news reports. Putin is already seen as backing a gasser by half the world.

I like how you are trying to convince me of a stance I already have.
 
The Thriller said:
What's the difference between a few thousand killed in Syria by chem chems and the millions slaughtered in Rwanda by machetes? Are people any less or more dead by chemical weapons?

It seems to me if the "world" cares about moralty, they wouldn't have just sat on their hands as they knew that horrible genocide was happening in Africa. Many Eurotrash officiala cut and ran just as millions needed them the most.

If the USA cared about "sending a message" then they maybe should have out a stop to the genocide in Rwanda. This would have demonstrated that we don't care who or what you are, mass killings will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

If those with machetes boil over into another nation, they can be stopped. Chemical Weapons... not quite as easily if at all.

Should we be doing something about all the fighting in Africa? Probably. And if I had a good answer to that, I'd provide it. But I just don't. Short of coming in, installing a government of our own, AND staying there for 10+ years with a huge military force, I just don't see a good answer existing.

But that raises another question; if everything we ever do is because of the dollah bling, why don't we own the diamond and mineral mines in Africa?
 
heyhey said:
What pseudo truths?

I have already posted in this thread where I stand. I will for you repeat myself.

As bad as Assad may be I believe the rebels look like they would be worse. There is nothing to be gained, from a humanitarian perspective, by weakening Assad. Look at how the US dealt with the Egypt/Israel problem. A carrot would have had more influence on Assad than the stick. Putin has his back and now the US is forced into a horrible position.

As for the world deciding that chemical weapons are out of bounds I'm pretty sure they have decided that child soldiers are out of bounds as well. I don't believe that the US is a puppet master, but I also don't believe that the US would get involved for purely humanitarian causes.( because we don't)
Click to expand...

heyhey said:
Read it again.

It is both what I would do and why.

Child Soldiers!!!
Click to expand...

You say only that there's no benefit to weakening Assad. That's all you say. You don't say I'll do this, or I'll do that.

I'll put what I think you're saying here:

"I'm totally cool with Assad using any and all weapons he has to crush the rebels, including but not limited to the chemical variety"

Which is exactly what we don't(read; shouldn't) want anyone to do, let alone someone trying to crush the rebel scum of their own country.
 
The Thriller said:
So what's preventing Asswad from obtaining chem chems here in a few months? Hell, this could be kinda fun! Much like March Madness or the Super Bowl! Every few months we could bomb Assad's newest chemical weapons!
Click to expand...

I'm going to stop you right there, as I feel this is the heart of your statement. Let's start here.

If we don't give him enough rope to hang himself with, we're the dictator. The world already see's us as world police, lets not make it any worse.
 
heyhey said:
I really think you are being a smidgeon naive.
Click to expand...

I could see some would think that. And I think in some situations those few could be right. We'll find out in the near future if this is one of those times, won't we?
 
ElRoach0 said:
The decision to do this, it seems, was made months ago.

I don't particularly care for this decision.
Click to expand...

Yes it was but the follow thru is recent. I am not a fan of it either. Especially since, in my opinion, it undermines the diplomacy that is going on now in regards to Syria's chemical weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top