Syria

Options
1246723

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    polaris_x said:
    This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

    As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 
    * the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
    * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
    *  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
    *  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

    definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
    Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
    you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?

    in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...

    http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm

  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,820
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

    As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 
    * the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
    * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
    *  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
    *  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

    definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
    Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
    you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?

    in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...

    http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm

    Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ConorKavanagh
    ConorKavanagh Ireland Posts: 1,148
    Fuck the U.S government. Fuck the French government, FUCK THE BRITISH government hardest of all.
    Dublin 2006
    Dublin 2010
    Madrid 2018
    Werchter 2022
    London 1 2022
    London 2 2022
    Krakow 2022
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    brianlux said:
    OK, so while you're thinking about or ignoring my other question (no problem there) what about this:  Why is it any of our business to be involved in Syria in the first place?  If you say, "Because this faction did such and such and we don't agree with that so we are going to bomb the shit out of someone", then other countries will say, "Yeah, well we don't agree so we're going to start bombing the shit out of you" and pretty soon everybody is bombing the shit out of everybody and in 2018 THIS IS NOT A FUCKING GOOD IDEA!
    Syria is only on the US radar because of an oil pipline 
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    Fuck the U.S government. Fuck the French government, FUCK THE BRITISH government hardest of all.

    You must be Irish lol. Why all the hate?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

    As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 
    * the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
    * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
    *  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
    *  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

    definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
    Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
    you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?

    in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...

    http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm

    Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
    well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
  • mcgruff10 said:
    IMO:
    World war 2: justified
    Korea: justified
    Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
    Vietnam: not justified 
    Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
    Grenada: justified
    Nicaragua: justified
    Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
    Rwanda: justified but went in too late
    Serbia/Bosnia: justified
    Afghanistan: justified
    Iraq: not justified
    ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
    Syria: too soon to tell

    Rwanda... never went at all.

    Clinton made an appearance after things had settled down and apologized for western indifference, but he did so as Air Force One idled on the runway- which he hopped in immediately after speaking and flew home.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    mcgruff10 said:
    IMO:
    World war 2: justified
    Korea: justified
    Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
    Vietnam: not justified 
    Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
    Grenada: justified
    Nicaragua: justified
    Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
    Rwanda: justified but went in too late
    Serbia/Bosnia: justified
    Afghanistan: justified
    Iraq: not justified
    ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
    Syria: too soon to tell

    Rwanda... never went at all.

    Clinton made an appearance after things had settled down and apologized for western indifference, but he did so as Air Force One idled on the runway- which he hopped in immediately after speaking and flew home.
    I didn’t know that. For some reason I thought a few hundred troops were sent in.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    I guess Trump's airstrike were constitutional after all:
    "The president has asserted authority under Article II of the Constitution for these strikes, but any sustained military action in Syria would require congressional authorization," Senator Melendez (D) said. "I expect the Trump administration to promptly brief Congress on these strikes, their plan for Syria, including countering Russian and Iranian support for the regime, and any future use of military force."
    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/how_njs_senators_reacted_to_trumps_air_strikes_in.html

    I guess if it is one and done it is cool but anything else needs to be authorized by congress.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,820
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

    As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 
    * the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
    * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
    *  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
    *  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

    definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
    Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
    you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?

    in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...

    http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm

    Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
    well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
    I’m not sure China is my moral compass.  I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

    As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 
    * the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
    * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
    *  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
    *  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

    definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
    Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
    you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?

    in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...

    http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm

    Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
    well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
    I’m not sure China is my moral compass.  I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
    Add North Korea to that sentence.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,658
    mcgruff10 said:
    IMO:
    World war 2: justified
    Korea: justified
    Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
    Vietnam: not justified 
    Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
    Grenada: justified
    Nicaragua: justified
    Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
    Rwanda: justified but went in too late
    Serbia/Bosnia: justified
    Afghanistan: justified
    Iraq: not justified
    ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
    Syria: too soon to tell
    Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,658
    polaris_x said:
    remember ... everyone ...

    people who would normally be anti-war would not support intervening against a country unless it is believed that the country is evil and/or the leader is satan reborn ... the so called humanitarian cause for war ...
    I'm not normally anti-war.  I'm always anti-war.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    brianlux said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    IMO:
    World war 2: justified
    Korea: justified
    Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
    Vietnam: not justified 
    Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
    Grenada: justified
    Nicaragua: justified
    Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
    Rwanda: justified but went in too late
    Serbia/Bosnia: justified
    Afghanistan: justified
    Iraq: not justified
    ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
    Syria: too soon to tell
    Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
    say what?  so you agreed with me on only two of these?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    mcgruff10 said:
    My point being, presidents do what they want and then the opposite party ridicules and complains. A few years later, a different political party does the same type of complaining when the same issue occur. Double standard. You can’t be a Democrat and bitch and moan about trump s Syrian strikes but support Obama’s just a few years before. Same can be said of Republicans. 
    “Our number one priority is to see this president fail.”
    I just saw this. A common phrase used by both democrat and republican.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,658
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    IMO:
    World war 2: justified
    Korea: justified
    Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
    Vietnam: not justified 
    Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
    Grenada: justified
    Nicaragua: justified
    Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
    Rwanda: justified but went in too late
    Serbia/Bosnia: justified
    Afghanistan: justified
    Iraq: not justified
    ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
    Syria: too soon to tell
    Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
    say what?  so you agreed with me on only two of these?
    No McG, sorry, only 7/8.  But then, I suck at math so... :lol:

    No, seriously, only WWII only only partially.  The others?  No, can't say as I agree.  We stick our nose where it doesn't belong.  Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,111
    brianlux said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    IMO:
    World war 2: justified
    Korea: justified
    Cuban Missile Crisis: justified
    Vietnam: not justified 
    Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence
    Grenada: justified
    Nicaragua: justified
    Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified
    Rwanda: justified but went in too late
    Serbia/Bosnia: justified
    Afghanistan: justified
    Iraq: not justified
    ISIS: justified based on a not justified war
    Syria: too soon to tell
    Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
    say what?  so you agreed with me on only two of these?
    No McG, sorry, only 7/8.  But then, I suck at math so... :lol:

    No, seriously, only WWII only only partially.  The others?  No, can't say as I agree.  We stick our nose where it doesn't belong.  Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
    so Afghanistan 01 was ok?
    and going with pearl harbor...remember the japanese invaded china first which resulted in the u.s. cutting japan's oil supply.  they needed oil in the dutch east indies so they thought they could take america out by a sneak attack.  however japan was ignored during the treaty of versailles so we could actually put blame on the english and french.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    polaris_x said:
    This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified.  But I’m trying to look around a bit more.  I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right. 

    As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. 
    * the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked
    * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma
    *  if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy
    *  these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter

    definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
    Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
    you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?

    in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...

    http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm

    Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
    well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
    I’m not sure China is my moral compass.  I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
    so the countries we know have lied are trustworthy but china and russia aren't ... at the end of the day - what is wrong or irrational with what they posted ... what if anything they wrote is unreasonable ...

    isn't that what justice is founded on? ... get the evidence ... get the facts ... then decide? ... avoid war at all costs?
This discussion has been closed.