New link in the top of page "IRC Chat".
Register | Login
Views: 135420985
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Last Posts | IRC Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album 		11-21-24 02:59 PM
0 users currently in General Chat.
Xeogaming Forums - General Chat - Syria
  
User name:
Password:
Reply:
 
Options: - -
UserPost
Lord Vulkas Mormonus
Posts: 4342/4541		 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Putin wrote an editorial in the NY Times, interesting read.
Elara
Posts: 8557/9736		 Yes. I agree that something should have been done two years ago when this started... the United Nations should have gone above Russia's biased veto and acted to restore order.

But we cannot change the past, no matter how stupid a decision it was. *sigh*

... I mean, honestly... WHY did we let an obviously biased party veto intervention?
FX
Posts: 3735/3775		 This image pretty succinctly points out what I find so ridiculous and oxymoronic about war laws.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/the-white-house-may-really-be-about-to-win-on-syria/

"Murder your populous all you want, just make sure to use the legally approved methods to do it."
Elara
Posts: 8554/9736		 So, I am now wondering if we've engaged in an international game of chicken.

Biden made a comment that strikes could be avoided if Syria turned over all their chemical weapons to international control. Some say the comment was half serious... but... next thing you know, the Foreign Minister of Russia is urging Syria to do just that.

... and the FM of Syria agreed.

This leads me to wonder.... was this all planned? The President didn't need Congressional approval for a strike, but he asked them for it knowing full well that the House will inevitably say no because... well... they say no to everything he asks them to do. But the serious debate still makes the rest of the world nervous and sabres rattle... then they give an out and it is quickly taken.

The question is... in the long run, will it work?
FX
Posts: 3733/3775		 Here's an interesting theory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-left-and-right-entire_b_3852157.html
Rogue
Posts: 9876/11918		 Can Assad be tried as a war criminal like Malaysia tried Bush and Cheney?
Elara
Posts: 8552/9736
Originally posted by Lord Vulkas Mormonus
So I'm just curious, what here is different between this and the war in Iraq?

In both, we had confirmed knowledge of the use of chemical weapons in the past. The difference here is that Iraq would not let UN inspectors in, while Syria is. Also, we knew for sure that it was Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons in Iraq, in Syria we believe it was Hassad. Evidence is very strong that it was him, but it's still not 100%.

Both nations have very few links to having harmed us, except that there is some amount of evidence of an Iraqi politician being present for the planning of 9/11.

An attack against both nations would mean a lot of diplomatic problems for the US, only for Iraq is was more problems with Iran and some other middle eastern countries. Here it's China and Russia that will be very angry with us.

Both wars will be taking place while America is hurting economically. Only now we'll be doing it with a lot of budget cuts in the military.

Both nations have links to Al Qaeda, only now we'd be fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda.

Now, I understand that we cannot allow the use of Chemical weapons. However, is the solution really to invade them? Furthermore, the way we'd attack will most likely be through the use of missiles and drone strikes, which have a high amount of collateral damage.

And just the final question, why on earth didn't we invade them two years ago when it happened, why are we only just now getting around to it? It seems like invading a country in such a way that we will have a lot of civilian casualties for something that happened two years ago, and aren't even 100% sure was done by the government is pretty odd.

Like I said before though, I honestly think that this is more about the politcs than it is about stopping the use of chemical weapons. If it was about the chemical weapons, we would have invaded two years ago, not now when OBama and the NSA is getting all sorts of backlash about other things.


1) Because information about Iraq turned out to be fabricated.

2) This isn't an invasion. That requires sending in troops, which we are not doing here, nor were we ever.

3) Personally, I do not know if missile strikes are a good idea or not. I think that we should be looking at multiple options... but just standing around saying "We condemn the attacks," isn't going to stop them.

4) Politicians ignore issues in other countries that don't have immediate interests involved for as long as they can get away with it. This last attack was so blatant that we just can't do that anymore. I agree that we should have taken stricter measures two years ago, but I don't have a time machine to go back and bitchslap Congress into putting some sanctions on both Syria and anyone selling them weapons, now do I?
Lord Vulkas Mormonus
Posts: 4341/4541		 In Iraq we also had the support of the UK, Canada, Australia, and a few other nations.

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-strike-allies/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Actually, from the looks of it, it WILL be just us this time. Even England won't help us out.
FX
Posts: 3732/3775		 I feel like the main difference is that it's not just us this time.
Lord Vulkas Mormonus
Posts: 4340/4541		 So I'm just curious, what here is different between this and the war in Iraq?

In both, we had confirmed knowledge of the use of chemical weapons in the past. The difference here is that Iraq would not let UN inspectors in, while Syria is. Also, we knew for sure that it was Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons in Iraq, in Syria we believe it was Hassad. Evidence is very strong that it was him, but it's still not 100%.

Both nations have very few links to having harmed us, except that there is some amount of evidence of an Iraqi politician being present for the planning of 9/11.

An attack against both nations would mean a lot of diplomatic problems for the US, only for Iraq is was more problems with Iran and some other middle eastern countries. Here it's China and Russia that will be very angry with us.

Both wars will be taking place while America is hurting economically. Only now we'll be doing it with a lot of budget cuts in the military.

Both nations have links to Al Qaeda, only now we'd be fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda.

Now, I understand that we cannot allow the use of Chemical weapons. However, is the solution really to invade them? Furthermore, the way we'd attack will most likely be through the use of missiles and drone strikes, which have a high amount of collateral damage.

And just the final question, why on earth didn't we invade them two years ago when it happened, why are we only just now getting around to it? It seems like invading a country in such a way that we will have a lot of civilian casualties for something that happened two years ago, and aren't even 100% sure was done by the government is pretty odd.

Like I said before though, I honestly think that this is more about the politcs than it is about stopping the use of chemical weapons. If it was about the chemical weapons, we would have invaded two years ago, not now when OBama and the NSA is getting all sorts of backlash about other things.
FX
Posts: 3731/3775		 No, just the concept that there are laws for war seems so absurd. Because when you make one type of murder illegal, it's saying that all others are fine.

It just always conjures an image in my head of two countries having a brutal war, when one suddenly calls time-out and says, "Dude, you can't do that, it's against the rules." It's just bizarre to imagine.
Astrophel
Posts: 2641/2724		 Then you approve of attacks on undefended civilian settlements and neutral medical ships (Hague Convention of 1899), torture, and attacks of any kind on noncombatants (Geneva Convention, common article 3)?

Interesting.
Cteno
Posts: 3159/3416
Originally posted by FX
By the way, am I the only one who finds war laws fucking absurd?

Nope.
FX
Posts: 3730/3775		 By the way, am I the only one who finds war laws fucking absurd?
Elara
Posts: 8551/9736		 Everyone is focusing on the civil war instead of the actual reason we are contemplating taking action. It doesn't matter who it is or who it was used on, it is a violation of international law to use chemical weapons and that law was broken.

What is the point of having a law if you do not enforce it? This should be the United Nations job... but Russia and China are cockblocking them from taking the actions that need taking because of their own self interests.
Rogue
Posts: 9871/11918		 Servicemen are putting up signs like this on social media:


More posted here

There have been skeptics posting that they think this original pic could be bogus since he'd be identifiable by his ribbons (if it is in fact the uniform's owner whose wearing them), but there are many more just like it. Again, some or all could be a random person in a purchased/borrowed uniform (and it's possible they're ALL real), but what are your thoughts?
Elara
Posts: 8546/9736		 Honestly I don't know what Congress will do but the debate will be interesting. I think that the main thing that needs to be understood is that any action we take is not to end the civil war, it is to send the message that you cannot just use chemical weapons and get away with it. Assad really put the international community between a rock and a hard place here.

But, for those that may not get exactly what is going on... here are 9 Questions About Syria You Were Too Embarrassed To Ask
Rogue
Posts: 9863/11918		 Also, the other thing to consider is that Syria's biggest ally is Russia. Russia's got a naval base there, they provide Syria with weapons, and this could get real ugly.
Rogue
Posts: 9861/11918		 Obama is seeking Congress' approval to strike Syria. Chances are they'll say no. What will happen then?
Rogue
Posts: 9857/11918		 Reportedly, Assad's 11-year-old son posted this on Facebook:



EDIT: No telling if this REALLY was posted by the kid. Just putting it here since it's been going around the news.

This is a long thread. Click here to view it.
Xeogaming Forums - General Chat - Syria



xeogaming.org

AcmlmBoard 1.92++ r4 Baseline
?2000-2013 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper, DarkSlaya*, Lord Alexandor*
*Unofficial Updates
Page rendered in 0.118 seconds.
0.039