DogOnPorch Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Signals, the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. We only interfere with their independence in the most extreme cases. THose are 1) when unprovoked they attack another sovereign nation, 2) they use, are mobilizing, or threatening to use chemical or biological weapons, and/or 3) they're committing genocide against a people within their borders. It is only in those circumstances that we ought to interfere. When two different ethnicities within a country arm themselves and decide to battle it out to the death for political control of a nation, this is not genocide. It is civil war and it's not our place to pick winners in these conflicts. How about countries like Mali that really have no government but are in the grips of Islamic terror? Is it a good idea for the UN to keep out like it has? Or should it go ahead with some sort of plan to restore order? I doubt we'd have to worry about CBW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Hell, I forgot all about these guys...are we dead yet ? In all the excitement from a small town in CT, I forgot we are about to gas millions of people like cockroaches !! Edited December 17, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Hell, I forgot all about these guys...are we dead yet ? In all the excitement from a small town in CT, I forgot we are about to gas millions of people like cockroaches !! No doubt with US supplied chemical weapons to boot. That Nixon...always turning-up like a dirty shirt. http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=430305 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Syria is loading bombs with sarin glass and is awaiting orders from their president to drop these on their protesting citizens. http://worldnews.nbc...sads-order?lite If there ever was a time that military intervention was necessary in international affairs, this is it. Did this ever happen? Or was it Media Hype again luring in the consperists? An update would be great.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Did this ever happen? Or was it Media Hype again luring in the consperists? An update would be great.. Updates are easy enough. Apparently both sides might have access to chemical weapons now. Well...according to the Syrian government...such that it is. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/syria-opposition-chemical-weapons-17999194#.UM-DtHe3eDA Older report...Syria: 'yes, we have chemical weapons but...' http://www.euronews.com/2012/07/24/syria-chemical-weapons-increase-tensions/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Signals, the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. We only interfere with their independence in the most extreme cases. THose are 1) when unprovoked they attack another sovereign nation, 2) they use, are mobilizing, or threatening to use chemical or biological weapons, and/or 3) they're committing genocide against a people within their borders. It is only in those circumstances that we ought to interfere. When two different ethnicities within a country arm themselves and decide to battle it out to the death for political control of a nation, this is not genocide. It is civil war and it's not our place to pick winners in these conflicts. 1) Like the many unprovoked attacks that North Korea commits every year? 2)Why not do something to prevent the use of chemical weapons when the nation gets a hold of the weapons rather than wait till they use them? 3)When do you step in and stop a genocide? When does it stop being the civil war in Rwanda and becomes the genocide in Rwanda? When would it stop being the civil war in Syria and when would it become the genocide in Syria? Rwanda was a civil war turned genocide, when do you decide where one ends and the other begins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Signals, the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. We only interfere with their independence in the most extreme cases. THose are 1) when unprovoked they attack another sovereign nation, 2) they use, are mobilizing, or threatening to use chemical or biological weapons, and/or 3) they're committing genocide against a people within their borders. It is only in those circumstances that we ought to interfere. When two different ethnicities within a country arm themselves and decide to battle it out to the death for political control of a nation, this is not genocide. It is civil war and it's not our place to pick winners in these conflicts. Cybercoma, that's all well and good. But who got to make that list of 1), 2), and 3), and why did that list include "mobilizing" or "threatening" to use chem/bio weapons but did not include killing tens of thousands of civilians with "conventional" weapons? And who gets to define what a chemical weapon is anyway? Gosthacked seemed to have been confused on what a chemical weapon even is. Same question applies to what is "genocide". A lot of people like to call the occupation of the West Bank "genocide" even though it plainly is not. No... your criteria are neither sufficiently precise, nor morally uncontroversial, nor have they generally been true or acted on in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 You either interfere when people are dying, or you don't interfere at all... it seems pretty stupid to draw the line at HOW you kill people rather than just killing people. So you are saying we will not bother any dictator who wants to slaughter his people as long as they are using approved means of slaughter No its not that simple. You intervene because you have a compelling self interest, or because of either internal or external political pressure. In the case of Syria despite all the fake rhetoric being spoon fed to westerners what we actually have there is a sectarian conflict thats been brewing for more than a decade. Sunni VS Alawi. Both sides are commiting atrocities, and both sides are killing civilians, and to pick a side means picking a dictator vs islamic terrorists, or vice versa. Arming the FSA is a stupid idea thats going to come back and bite us in the ass, and it will likely cause MORE people to die not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Cybercoma, that's all well and good. But who got to make that list of 1), 2), and 3), and why did that list include "mobilizing" or "threatening" to use chem/bio weapons but did not include killing tens of thousands of civilians with "conventional" weapons? And who gets to define what a chemical weapon is anyway? Gosthacked seemed to have been confused on what a chemical weapon even is. Same question applies to what is "genocide". A lot of people like to call the occupation of the West Bank "genocide" even though it plainly is not. No... your criteria are neither sufficiently precise, nor morally uncontroversial, nor have they generally been true or acted on in the past. None of these distinctions are even important. You either have a posse with sufficient interest in intervention or you dont. Whether or not chemical weapons are used or not is besides the point, and whether or not actions that take place during a civil war technically constitute genocide is besides the point as well. Is intervention likely to stop the killing? No. An FSA state would be a disaster for religious minorities (Alawites, Christians, etc). Is it likely that a Sunni Islamic Syria will contribute to stability, or enhance our interests? No. Is it likely that intervention will make things worse? Quite possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 No its not that simple. You intervene because you have a compelling self interest, or because of either internal or external political pressure. And in this case its neither, simply acting just because they crossed an imaginary line. In the case of Syria despite all the fake rhetoric being spoon fed to westerners what we actually have there is a sectarian conflict thats been brewing for more than a decade. Sunni VS Alawi. Both sides are commiting atrocities, and both sides are killing civilians, and to pick a side means picking a dictator vs islamic terrorists, or vice versa. In Syria, the only chance no matter how small of building a democracy is a direct military action immediately at the start of the uprising, anything else is a throw of the dice. If we let tens or hundreds of thousands of Syrians die and interfere only after either side crosses the imaginary line and become the "bad" guy we would at the same time piss off all sides. Arming the FSA is a stupid idea thats going to come back and bite us in the ass, and it will likely cause MORE people to die not less. That I agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 In Syria, the only chance no matter how small of building a democracy is a direct military action immediately at the start of the uprising, anything else is a throw of the dice. If we let tens or hundreds of thousands of Syrians die and interfere only after either side crosses the imaginary line and become the "bad" guy we would at the same time piss off all sides.Unfortunately the future will hold endless rounds of revenge for all imagined slights, no matter who wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 Unfortunately the future will hold endless rounds of revenge for all imagined slights, no matter who wins. Thats why the the likely result will be two states. One for the sunnis and one for everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 Thats why the the likely result will be two states. One for the sunnis and one for everyone else. Divide and conquer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 Divide and conquer. I don't think anyone actually wants that mess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I don't think anyone actually wants that mess... So, why is NATO backing the rebels? NATO sure wants this mess, means big money for the arms dealers in a strapped economy. Does not really help the economy at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 So, why is NATO backing the rebels? NATO sure wants this mess, means big money for the arms dealers in a strapped economy. Does not really help the economy at all. Who besides Alex Jones actually believes 'NATO' is 'backing the rebels'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) So, why is NATO backing the rebels? NATO sure wants this mess, means big money for the arms dealers in a strapped economy. Does not really help the economy at all. No one wants the mess, some people benefit from Syria and are thus backing one side or the other but no one really wants own to the mess... Edited December 28, 2012 by Signals.Cpl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Who besides Alex Jones actually believes 'NATO' is 'backing the rebels'? Actually I have managed to use many MSM articles regarding this. I would ask you to stop with the Jones shit, but I know that is the only bit you got in this thread. Calling you out on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Actually I have managed to use many MSM articles regarding this. I would ask you to stop with the Jones shit, but I know that is the only bit you got in this thread. Calling you out on it. Sorry. When I Google Syrian rebels supported by NATO, I get Alex Jones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Sorry. When I Google Syrian rebels supported by NATO, I get Alex Jones. Check the links in this thread and the one about Benghazi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/syria-agent-bz/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 http://www.wired.com...syria-agent-bz/ Agent 15 is similar to 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, a powerful hallucinogen that the American military tested out on its own soldiers during the Cold War. Its emergence on the Syrian battlefield would be nothing short of bizarre. While Syria is well-known to have a massive supply of chemical weapons, international observers haven’t ordinarily included BZ on that list. Assad can't use it on his own people , but the US military sure can use it against American soldiers. This is called hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Assad can't use it on his own people , but the US military sure can use it against American soldiers. This is called hypocrisy. Indeed. Acid is just no fun at all...lol. Assad should be free to VX to his heart's content in light of this apparent hypocrisy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtZ9lMKU7Rs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.