Syria

Boatwrench

Boatwrench

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Petaluma, CA
Been pretty boring in the Political Discussion Zone.

Mr President; My take on Syria is the same as dropping your wallet into a flow of lava...sometimes you just need to let it go.
 
I don't get it.

Should we--the U.N. we--step in when an animal uses WMDs on its on people? Well, yes.

However, we have ignored Saddam's use on the Kurds and his own people in the delta region, as well as his use of them against Iran.

NATO essentially attacked Libya for far less than what has happened in Syria. Are Syrians worth less than Libyans?

Do we need another war? No. Do we need military forces in Germany, U.K., Japan, etc.? No. Maybe South Korea, maybe not.

Did Russia use WMDs against Chechnya? I was thinking that they did.
 
Mr President, the current Syrian leadership is shoving women and children into a lava flow, and you're considering cowering like everyone else?
 
F... It
WW3 is gonna happen eventually. Why not sooner then later?
 
Let's see,..
Egypt: overthrow a military dictator so that radical Islamists can be "democratically" elected, causing no end of problems in the region.

Lybia: Overthrow a military dictator so that radical Islamists can be "democratically" elected, causing no end of problems in the region.

Syria,.. how will this be any different?

It's a civil war. Like all civil wars, the human toll on non-combatants is very high. Historically outside nations get involved in civil wars or not based on national priorities, as viewed by those nations' leaders, not to save non-combatants. Our compelling national interest in Syria is our treaties with, and historic protection of, the state of Israel. Syria's export and sponsorship of terrorism could be considered a compelling interest. In either case, allowing the war to string out and exhaust both sides is probably the best answer, from a national perspective. This would SUCK for everybody living in Syria, but the rest of the region would be at least as well, and probably better off.
 
No one there likes us now, and none of them will like us after we intervene including those we go in to help. Let the Arab world figure out what to do.
 
Syria never signed the Geneva Convention against Chemical Weapons.
So the way I see it, the UN has no leverage to enforce policy.

We should not ""Go it alone"", it's bad enough that the world sees us as the Global Police. That Policy and Perception needs to change.

If the UN wants help enforcing their Global Policies, they need to ask for it.

It is unfortunate that the Pres already talked a bunch of Trash. There are folks over there who believed that he could single handedly suck us into this Civil War.

And now for a history based proposition: Yes, I know Assad isn't a good guy by any means. But like Iraq when we toppled Hussein, what will happen is that the result will be much like the French Revolution and the killing won't stop for a long time.

Ron
 
Last edited:
I say we let them fight it out, screw them we have enough shit going on in our own country. Our president has already destroyed what relationship we have in Russia so Putin is chomping at the bit for us to do something so they can start a shit storm. Syria is a major seaport for Russia to do whatever it is they do that doesn't have to do with Vodka, so of course they are mad about us getting in the way of that. Whatever happened to Peace through superior firepower?
 
What ever happened to us just minding our own business? We need to bring home all of our troops and position them on our borders to enforce border policy. People in that part of the world have been fighting each other for thousands of years, they will continue to fight regardless of what we do or don't do. Let them kill each other like they've always done and just let it alone.
 
Regardless what we do or don't do, the law of unintended consequences will rear its ugly head (yeah, what else is new?). I'll hazard a guess that the greater our involvement, the more challenging those consequences will be....
 
Who has to gain from chemical weapons?
Assad: It would kill a couple 100 people but would give the warmongering US an excuse to rain fire down on him.

Rebels: They are terrorists anyway, don't care about collateral and it gives an excuse for warbama to wipe out their enemy and put them in power.


Also there's this
NSFW
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/atrocities-of-the-syrian-rebels-graphic-nsfw/
 
Last edited:
OT, but funny:

 
Guess you dont like wheeling public lands.
His appointment of a former CEO of REI pretty solidly clarified where this administration.stands on our hobby.
But I digress....
 
Funny and on topic. :)
 
AIbandit said:
Who has to gain from chemical weapons?
Assad: It would kill a couple 100 people but would give the warmongering US an excuse to rain fire down on him.

Rebels: They are terrorists anyway, don't care about collateral and it gives an excuse for warbama to wipe out their enemy and put them in power.
Click to expand...

So Warbama will have to bomb the rebels now right?
"Russia will give the Security Council evidence implicating Syrian rebels in a chemical attack on 21 August, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24140475
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Overheating final boss
Replies
19
Views
839
StimitheJoop
S
J
Alternator VS voltage regulator?
Replies
9
Views
433
lawsoncl
L
R
Congratulations to our new Leadership!
Replies
2
Views
262
STROKER
STROKER
P
Anyone running the RockJock 3.5" rear leaf?
Replies
8
Views
450
XJ_ranger
XJ_ranger
L
Torque Converter will not seat no matter what I do.
Replies
3
Views
1K
Legendaryfish35
L
Back
Top