- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,856
- 31,345
- 146
I still don't get why people want to compare this to Iraq.
I don't recall Iraq being involved in a bloody civil war for 2 years before the US decided to intervene. Please refresh my memory, though, because I see some major, major differences.
--not that I think there is anything right about this, just saying Iraq is a strawman. ...in terms of directly comparing the intelligence issue, sure, maybe.
I compare it to Iraq insofar as we've got the US government pushing intelligence data tailor fit to meet its needs to advance a war it wanted to get involved with even before the data was released.
Of course i do. Plus, he decided to hurl the insults first so i decided to troll along. Taking credit for someone else's work is pretty low in my book.
Last edited:
We know you support Assad. You don't need to repeat it.
I would be willing to wager that if i placed a poll on the forums asking if Incorruptible was the most retarded poster on P&N, 90% would vote yes.
Last edited:
Wow.
--------------------------------
Deliberate misquoting is not allowed
EK
Admin
Last edited by a moderator:
Gintaras
Golden Member
- Dec 28, 2000
- 1,892
- 1
- 71
BlueWolf47,
Who do US gov and people like you support? A cannibals, who behead Syrian gov supporters and eat their hearts? Evidence - on youtube...What worse can it be, when some cannibals behead someone on video and eat someone's heart?
Tha't the rebels US supports?
No evidence about chemical weapons, unless Assad farted and this way gassed some rebels - cannibals...
Another thing...Syria's population: ~22 mil. people How many are of so-called rebels, that US "supports"? Is a majority of all syrian population?
US are breaking a Principle of Democracy: Let people live the way they want...
Dictator? A dictator from US view becomes a government that "turns back on US"
Sadaam was killing his own people when he was an ally of US, and US didn't complain about that he's killing his own people. He did become a dictator, when he turned his back on US...
US can support and does support dictators....it depends...
Should some country attack US because US government killed 76 own people during Waco siege in 1993? US Law says -"Innocent until proven guilty", at Waco,TX, died not guilty people - US citizens...
It's really confusing how he can support the FSA. There are videos of them executing Syrian soldiers and attacking Christian and minority villages also they're anti-Israel.
What was Assad's motive and rationale for using chemical weapons? Did he not think about the consequences and just told the US to come at them?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Their list of 10 nations supporting us has the UK on it. Really?
Edit: Now that I've read it more thoroughly I think it's false advertising to call that a "coalition". I see zero support in their statement for any military action.
Fern
Last edited:
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
Excellent article by noonan:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
The only way I really think that might be like Iraq is if after claiming it will be quick and rather cheap we end up displacing Assad and have to go in after the chem weapons to keep them out of rebel hands. That's said to be at least 75,000 troops and only God knows how that would turn out. I.e., mission creep on a massive scale and potential nation building. But that's worst case. However, given this admin's performance of late, that also might be the 'most likely' case.
Fern
One of the problems, IMHO, comes about for reasons like this:
(quote from the article with '10 allies' etc)
Um, yeah, sure, lol. In the west people seem to make the mistake that united, inclusive, and democratic go together. Sure, in a rich 1st world country that made its own borders instead of having them drawn up by some dude thousands of miles away a hundred years ago, with a set of laws to protect minority rights, that might work, but in the middle east, examples of united, inclusive, democratic countries are few and far between. united, inclusive, and democratic: choose one. united? oppressive dictatorship. inclusive? sure, if all the "undesirables" as viewed by one group, uh, 'cease to exist'. democratic? sure, in a two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner sort of way.
edit: the point I was getting at: There seems to be a substantial disregard for any understanding of the fact that our view of what democracy means does not in any way shape or form necessarily have any bearing on what other people want for themselves.
(quote from the article with '10 allies' etc)
Um, yeah, sure, lol. In the west people seem to make the mistake that united, inclusive, and democratic go together. Sure, in a rich 1st world country that made its own borders instead of having them drawn up by some dude thousands of miles away a hundred years ago, with a set of laws to protect minority rights, that might work, but in the middle east, examples of united, inclusive, democratic countries are few and far between. united, inclusive, and democratic: choose one. united? oppressive dictatorship. inclusive? sure, if all the "undesirables" as viewed by one group, uh, 'cease to exist'. democratic? sure, in a two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner sort of way.
edit: the point I was getting at: There seems to be a substantial disregard for any understanding of the fact that our view of what democracy means does not in any way shape or form necessarily have any bearing on what other people want for themselves.
Last edited:
Ventanni
Golden Member
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,432
- 142
- 106
Absolutely not.
For one, I just haven't seen any conclusive proof that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on its own people. I know Russia is stating that the rebels have done it, but let's look at one of the core factors here; Syria is a very big business partner for Russia, so of course they don't want the United States intervening and beheading one of their best customers. But back to the main point, there's no conclusive proof as to who did it, and with all due respect, us Americans have the right to question the validity of US Intelligence in situations like these. Our past experiences with our government officials going "on record" regarding these things haven't served as a very good foundation for establishing trust.
Secondly, IF it was actually the rebels that used the chemical weapons, then the best thing for us Americans to do is probably aid the Syrian regime so they can retake control of their own weapons depots, or simply leave them alone to let them eventually win. Assad is a monster, no doubt about that, but like the old adage states; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And, as we've learned from Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, these monstrous dictators are our best friends when it comes to keeping the radicals in check. I hate admitting that, but it's true.
Third, what are the possible ramifications if we attack? I just don't see much positive coming out of it. Russia is behind Syria. Iran is behind Syria. What's the potential for igniting a broader, more regional war here? I trust that cooler heads will prevail, but the last thing I want to do is start a war where a million more people die.
For one, I just haven't seen any conclusive proof that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on its own people. I know Russia is stating that the rebels have done it, but let's look at one of the core factors here; Syria is a very big business partner for Russia, so of course they don't want the United States intervening and beheading one of their best customers. But back to the main point, there's no conclusive proof as to who did it, and with all due respect, us Americans have the right to question the validity of US Intelligence in situations like these. Our past experiences with our government officials going "on record" regarding these things haven't served as a very good foundation for establishing trust.
Secondly, IF it was actually the rebels that used the chemical weapons, then the best thing for us Americans to do is probably aid the Syrian regime so they can retake control of their own weapons depots, or simply leave them alone to let them eventually win. Assad is a monster, no doubt about that, but like the old adage states; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And, as we've learned from Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, these monstrous dictators are our best friends when it comes to keeping the radicals in check. I hate admitting that, but it's true.
Third, what are the possible ramifications if we attack? I just don't see much positive coming out of it. Russia is behind Syria. Iran is behind Syria. What's the potential for igniting a broader, more regional war here? I trust that cooler heads will prevail, but the last thing I want to do is start a war where a million more people die.
Gintaras
Golden Member
- Dec 28, 2000
- 1,892
- 1
- 71
Simply...
US would kill both and install regime is needed for US and most important - for Israel...
Do US care about regular people of Syria - ~20million population? "democracy" and other BS?
All US care, that it would be a regime friendly to US...otherwise - it's a dictator...that needs to be taken out...
Gintaras
Golden Member
- Dec 28, 2000
- 1,892
- 1
- 71
Gintaras
Golden Member
- Dec 28, 2000
- 1,892
- 1
- 71
I don't think, you should get involved in such conversations...
Why can't you find another tranny to blow? just like your dad did...
LightPattern
Senior member
- Feb 18, 2013
- 413
- 17
- 81
Not at this point. No direct involvement.
Just give the supplies, including ammo, we've already promised the rebels.
Just give the supplies, including ammo, we've already promised the rebels.
Kerry himself admits that up to 25% (in HIS estimation) of the rebels are enemies of the United States and are said to be more organized and better armed. Regardless of that, 25% alone is a high enough number to say that attacking Assadd would be giving that 25% aid and comfort.
Frankly he can make a much better case for going in and attacking the AQ groups than he can for helping AQ.
What do you expect from a militarized group with out proper leadership. Even well organized militarys, such as the US army, commit heinous acts. War is ugly. If we had given more support to the FSA early on, we wouldn't be worrying about radicals hijacking revolution. That does not however, mean intervening. They are better off winning it for themselves.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter