In The News

[whiterabbit]

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't be doing anything, when people are being killed by chemical weapons outlawed by international law and is a big crime against humanity on top of all the other crimes against humanity?

Okay. I guess appeasement solves everything. They're not Americans, or Canadians, or British being killed by outlawed weapons, so why should we care? This won't reflect our principles at all.

It sure seems that way. I don't understand it but then again Syria doesn't have any riches to spoil.

[Gate]

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't be doing anything, when people are being killed by chemical weapons outlawed by international law and is a big crime against humanity on top of all the other crimes against humanity?

Okay. I guess appeasement solves everything. They're not Americans, or Canadians, or British being killed by outlawed weapons, so why should we care? This won't reflect our principles at all.

The United States does not need to free the shit out of these folks this time around. We need to sit it out. Even if President Obama wants to stick to a very limited approach, what did we call Operation Iraqi Freedom? Yeah..

I believe evil men like Assad and Kim Jong-un should be stopped, but if we're gonna do that, then we need to find a way that will keep a permanent resolution there.

[Deathbearer]

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't be doing anything, when people are being killed by chemical weapons outlawed by international law and is a big crime against humanity on top of all the other crimes against humanity?

Okay. I guess appeasement solves everything. They're not Americans, or Canadians, or British being killed by outlawed weapons, so why should we care? This won't reflect our principles at all.

Why does it have to be our problem? Why is it that America has to be the world's police officer? The last thing the country needs is another war. We've intervened enough in the Middle East and look what it's gotten us: jack diddly shit.

[Crazy Rich]

I don't follow that "world police officer" talk as I'm not one for politics because it's best avoided, I just have a humanitarian opinion.

Something has to be done, I'm not saying America has to rush in, but something has to be done though, eventually.

As Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the UN said "the conflict in Syria is a test of everything this organization stands for." Oh, he's South Korean by the way not American, just thought I'd mention that.



P.S

Syria should actually be more worried about France. France once said that if Syria were to use chemical weapons in the civil war France promised a "massive and blistering" response.

And you folks are worried about America...

[SM]

Why is it that America has to be the world's police officer?

Since America set themselves up as the world's police officer since WW2.

[maledoro]

What I find to be amusing is that the people who insisted that the US should invade Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush 43 was in office are now against going to Syria with anti-Obama commentary.

[DoomRulz]

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't be doing anything, when people are being killed by chemical weapons outlawed by international law and is a big crime against humanity on top of all the other crimes against humanity?

Okay. I guess appeasement solves everything. They're not Americans, or Canadians, or British being killed by outlawed weapons, so why should we care? This won't reflect our principles at all.

What are you talking about? The issue is not which nationality they represent. It's about policing the affairs of another nation when historically, it's been shown to have negative consequences. The moment another country interferes in the affairs of another nation is when things go to shit. If you don't believe me, look at the supposed good that's come out of Afghanistan or Iraq.

[whiterabbit]

What I find to be amusing is that the people who insisted that the US should invade Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush 43 was in office are now against going to Syria with anti-Obama commentary.

That was essentially what people were doing here. Protesting Obama under the guise of it's Syria's problem. Eh more like name-calling and shouting really. Stupid bastards.

I'm for a massive attack that would include troops. You do not make war half-assed. If you're going to wage war you wage it to win. The UN is doing exactly what it was intended to do and that was to be a forum to prevent war. However if this is allowed to go unabated then there is nothing to stop it from happening in any number of other countries.

I mean really. Who the hell thinks this is "not our problem"? It is everyone's problem. There's not one damn possible good outcome at all here.

[maledoro]

What are you talking about? The issue is not which nationality they represent. It's about policing the affairs of another nation when historically, it's been shown to have negative consequences. The moment another country interferes in the affairs of another nation is when things go to shit. If you don't believe me, look at the supposed good that's come out of Afghanistan or Iraq.

It's not that cut and dry. Each invasion had its own circumstances. The Iraq invasion was based on false evidence and Afghanistan was based on faulty intel. Plus, there was a poor evaluation and estimate of the various groups (Taliban, et al.) and their intentions. There was little of that in 1940's Germany.

[DoomRulz]

What are you talking about? The issue is not which nationality they represent. It's about policing the affairs of another nation when historically, it's been shown to have negative consequences. The moment another country interferes in the affairs of another nation is when things go to shit. If you don't believe me, look at the supposed good that's come out of Afghanistan or Iraq.

It's not that cut and dry. Each invasion had its own circumstances. The Iraq invasion was based on false evidence and Afghanistan was based on faulty intel. Plus, there was a poor evaluation and estimate of the various groups (Taliban, et al.) and their intentions. There was little of that in 1940's Germany.

You can't use 1940's Germany as an example in this case. Germany openly declared war against other European nations so going to war on a global scale was pretty much mandatory. Germany wanted to fight on a global scale. The conflict wasn't restricted to their borders only.

I'm referring to smaller incidents like the revolution in Syria, or Libya, or Egypt, etc... The best example I can think of is Rwanda. 800 000 people (roughly) died in one of the bloodiest genocides humanity has ever witnessed yet the outside world didn't really do much of anything to actually prevent and look where Rwanda is today. It's still a third-world nation but the country was able to find some level of political stability on its own.

[Bjørn Half-hand]

What? I'm responding to whiterabbit who responded to Rich.

But you're sticking your nose into another country's business. No, no!

I don't think any nation should get involved militarily in a civil war. Killing Syrians to stop Syrians killing Syrians.

Kinda like killing Germans to stop Germans from killing Germans and non-Germans.

It's not the same. Germany invaded another country. This is a civil war.

This should be resolved with peace processes whilst giving aid (medical/food etc) to those that need it.

So, by sending in unarmed personnel in battle-torn areas? Got it.

They could go in with UN peacekeepers, not a force there to ''dismantle the Syrian military'' people who are there just to ensure aid workers aren't killed

[maledoro]

You can't use 1940's Germany as an example in this case.

Oh, shit! Did I say 1940s? I meant 1930s Germany! Sorry for the confusion.

Germany openly declared war against other European nations so going to war on a global scale was pretty much mandatory. Germany wanted to fight on a global scale. The conflict wasn't restricted to their borders only.

Consider that there are other countries at stake, too, like Turkey.

I'm referring to smaller incidents like the revolution in Syria, or Libya, or Egypt, etc... The best example I can think of is Rwanda. 800 000 people (roughly) died in one of the bloodiest genocides humanity has ever witnessed yet the outside world didn't really do much of anything to actually prevent and look where Rwanda is today.

Africa?

[AliceApocalypse]

Ariel Castro was found dead in his jail cell this morning, apparently suicide.

[maledoro]

Ariel Castro was found dead in his jail cell this morning, apparently suicide.

He found out he was male. Sad. I liked The Little Mermaid.

[DoomRulz]

Germany openly declared war against other European nations so going to war on a global scale was pretty much mandatory. Germany wanted to fight on a global scale. The conflict wasn't restricted to their borders only.

Consider that there are other countries at stake, too, like Turkey.

Until the conflict goes beyond their border, the Turks don't have to take up arms. They should be prepared for something spilling over but that doesn't mean they should invade Germany and settle things themselves.

I'm referring to smaller incidents like the revolution in Syria, or Libya, or Egypt, etc... The best example I can think of is Rwanda. 800 000 people (roughly) died in one of the bloodiest genocides humanity has ever witnessed yet the outside world didn't really do much of anything to actually prevent and look where Rwanda is today.

Africa?

Well I don't mean Eastern Europe