Israel shoots down Syrian fighter jet

Drowned Out

Jason P said:

Drowned Out said:

Jason P said:

brianlux said:

The US seems to always go with the "bomb them first and they'll change" stance. The other thing that gets me is that some of these news reports mention innocent people being killed in the bombing s like "oh well, shit happens". But how would we feel if that shit were happening to us? That whole "collateral damage, too bad so sad" attitude does not reflect well on who we are. Or maybe it does which is even worse.

To be fair, the original US policy was to let them bomb each other for three years.

The devil is in the details you're leaving out - US policy included supplying the bombs, training, and money to bomb 'each other' (I say 'each other' as in, the Syrian government). They supplied the mercenaries (via Libya) that turned a social movement into a civil war, and their allies allowed them to enter Syria. They also supplied the training for the chemical attacks, then orchestrated a media campaign to blame it on Assad with no evidence to support the claim....while UN weapons inspectors claimed the attacks came from the forces the US were backing.
You make it sound like the US has been a casual observer, when they've been one of the main catalysts for the whole thing. If you search the 'Syria' thread, you'll find comments I posted from US officials stating that they knew their arms would end up in the hands of the 'wrong' rebels from the start.
I guess the beacon of hope narrative can only be maintained with denial - pretending we're just getting involved now.

I can observe that the US is involved and has been involved. We are involved in everything throughout the world. Russia has also been involved. Arab nations have been involved. United Nations have been involved. A 2000 year old book has been involved. Dictators have been involved.

Which of the above sources that are involved will bring stability if it is completely removed?

Considering there was 'stability' in Syria prior to the US and their allies attempting to overthrow Assad by proxy, I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

callen

Drowned Out said:

Jason P said:

Drowned Out said:

Jason P said:

brianlux said:

The US seems to always go with the "bomb them first and they'll change" stance. The other thing that gets me is that some of these news reports mention innocent people being killed in the bombing s like "oh well, shit happens". But how would we feel if that shit were happening to us? That whole "collateral damage, too bad so sad" attitude does not reflect well on who we are. Or maybe it does which is even worse.

To be fair, the original US policy was to let them bomb each other for three years.

The devil is in the details you're leaving out - US policy included supplying the bombs, training, and money to bomb 'each other' (I say 'each other' as in, the Syrian government). They supplied the mercenaries (via Libya) that turned a social movement into a civil war, and their allies allowed them to enter Syria. They also supplied the training for the chemical attacks, then orchestrated a media campaign to blame it on Assad with no evidence to support the claim....while UN weapons inspectors claimed the attacks came from the forces the US were backing.
You make it sound like the US has been a casual observer, when they've been one of the main catalysts for the whole thing. If you search the 'Syria' thread, you'll find comments I posted from US officials stating that they knew their arms would end up in the hands of the 'wrong' rebels from the start.
I guess the beacon of hope narrative can only be maintained with denial - pretending we're just getting involved now.

I can observe that the US is involved and has been involved. We are involved in everything throughout the world. Russia has also been involved. Arab nations have been involved. United Nations have been involved. A 2000 year old book has been involved. Dictators have been involved.

Which of the above sources that are involved will bring stability if it is completely removed?

Considering there was 'stability' in Syria prior to the US and their allies attempting to overthrow Assad by proxy, I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

Funny how one group knows what's best for another group. And then tried to impose its values. Making it worse. Over and over again.


Gotsta Git them Evildoers.

Drowned Out

callen said:

Drowned Out said:

Jason P said:

Drowned Out said:

Jason P said:

brianlux said:

The US seems to always go with the "bomb them first and they'll change" stance. The other thing that gets me is that some of these news reports mention innocent people being killed in the bombing s like "oh well, shit happens". But how would we feel if that shit were happening to us? That whole "collateral damage, too bad so sad" attitude does not reflect well on who we are. Or maybe it does which is even worse.

To be fair, the original US policy was to let them bomb each other for three years.

The devil is in the details you're leaving out - US policy included supplying the bombs, training, and money to bomb 'each other' (I say 'each other' as in, the Syrian government). They supplied the mercenaries (via Libya) that turned a social movement into a civil war, and their allies allowed them to enter Syria. They also supplied the training for the chemical attacks, then orchestrated a media campaign to blame it on Assad with no evidence to support the claim....while UN weapons inspectors claimed the attacks came from the forces the US were backing.
You make it sound like the US has been a casual observer, when they've been one of the main catalysts for the whole thing. If you search the 'Syria' thread, you'll find comments I posted from US officials stating that they knew their arms would end up in the hands of the 'wrong' rebels from the start.
I guess the beacon of hope narrative can only be maintained with denial - pretending we're just getting involved now.

I can observe that the US is involved and has been involved. We are involved in everything throughout the world. Russia has also been involved. Arab nations have been involved. United Nations have been involved. A 2000 year old book has been involved. Dictators have been involved.

Which of the above sources that are involved will bring stability if it is completely removed?

Considering there was 'stability' in Syria prior to the US and their allies attempting to overthrow Assad by proxy, I'd say the answer is pretty clear.

Funny how one group knows what's best for another group. And then tried to impose its values. Making it worse. Over and over again.


Gotsta Git them Evildoers.

Ya, right...
And the usual next response in the 'intervention' debate is to demonize the leader we want gone, consequences be damned. It doesn't take much to demonize Assad.

But here's the thing: generally, the same people who support regime change are the same people who will tell us that the surveillance state we live under now is no big deal if you're not doing anything wrong. Yet they don't apply that to the dictators they've been convinced to want gone. A lot of Syrians lived normal lives under Assad....a lot of people were thriving under Ghaddafi; Libya had some impressive (for Africa) metrics in relation to healthcare, education etc..and I'm sure it wasn't all hell and mustard gas for the average Iraqi citizen under Saddam. But the not-ideal option of 'keep your head down, work hard and you will be left to live your life in peace' option is no longer available to tens of millions of people because of our governments actions, and attempt to impose western values. Hence the growing number of people bitter enough to take the side of the strongest opposition to our oppression; currently the IS.

callen

Have always thought that if we stayed out of these countries, though things may be bad to certain extent, trade and sharing of cultures and people traveling to other countries, things,would smooth out on their own.

Sure there are lots that have lost loved ones to our freedom bombs and now hating the west, probably looked up to the west prior. All the young people in particular. Our wars have guaranteed several generations of hate towards the west.

With internet and social media the young would have slowly gravitated towards the west. Sex drugs and rock n roll would of prevailed. he'll look where Iraqi soldiers went prior to deciding to stay in North America. A titty bar.

Yeah as in the US. the old men would of resisted but their kids would of seen a better way. As in Iran. We stopped it. We make it easy to keep status quo.

As to Syria, do you blame Assad? Yeah he should of used less forceful means but.....

Think the US has been more critical of Israel, but we negated benefits with our meddling.

Course non of this matters as leaders place harmony on bottom of their priority list. All about control of oil/$$$$$$.

tempo_n_groove

aqwiopu0[]
\o'q1