The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[The Scientific States]

Good point. But military force will lead to war. Assad said he will not tolerate a Western attack.

And I should care what Assad says?

He needs to understand that he is on the shit list for using Chem weapons on his own people and he has to either do two things.

Be the honorable one and leave the country, dismantle his government, and allow democracy into the country (even if it may turn out bad)

Or suffer having to face only a small part of the US military, one that could destroy and hurt his country.

If I were him, I would choose number one.

As would I. Hopefully he's a rational person who'll choose number one. Even though I don't think he's a rational person.

[Warda]

Do you honestly think that Russia and China are on his side and will retaliate if he's attacked?

I never said they absolutely would.

Who knows? I don't know what Putin is thinking.

He said if Obama presents evidence at the summit meeting he will support a UN strike, if not and the US goes a head he will restart shipments of weapons to Syria.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

What international intelligence? All I'm hearing is "we said so" and "we assess", from US and France. Have you a source? Additionally, I'm looking at what comes out of Obama's mouth, and what comes out of Kerry's mouth. Those are comments that are more hawkish than what most Americans support.

Tweets from rebels = "intelligence". The CIA has really let itself fucking go. Bring back the insanity-causing beard itching powder and exploding cigars please, not a bunch of highschool drop-outs trolling rebel twitter feeds.

CIA declassifies one piece of information pertaining to Syria ---> "LOL LOOK THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY HAVE!"

Really?

[Frisivisia]

Most Americans don't have the experience or knowledge that Kerry and Obama have. There's a reason that we don't vote on troop movements and logistics, and that's because the people don't have the training or the intelligence to make the best decision for US and world interests.

Still waiting for evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assad did it, cause we said so, trust us" is still not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have intel from multiple nations saying "yeah, he fucking gassed them". Do we second-guess a reporter when he writes about something?

[Dangelia]

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/securit ... tails.html

Two bishops were kidnapped by the rebels.

Thousands of civilians were killed by chemical weapons.

Your point?

Rebels attack Christians just because of their faith. Therefore, America cannot support the rebels.

[Orcoa]

The UN won't do it. We have to.

The UN made anti chemical weapon legislation themselves, they'll probably do something.

America isn't and shouldn't be the world police. If something goes wrong we can't be the only ones to do something.

But because the UN does not have the powers to be the World police, we have to.

I'm all for the UN having a real army, one that can stop this kind of shit and kill the monsters that live in the shit holes like Syria or Sudan. I want America to take a breath and relax from fighting for once.

But till that day happens, the US arm forces have to do what no one else will do.

[Srboslavija]

What international intelligence? All I'm hearing is "we said so" and "we assess", from US and France. Have you a source? Additionally, I'm looking at what comes out of Obama's mouth, and what comes out of Kerry's mouth. Those are comments that are more hawkish than what most Americans support.

Most Americans don't have the experience or knowledge that Kerry and Obama have. There's a reason that we don't vote on troop movements and logistics, and that's because the people don't have the training or the intelligence to make the best decision for US and world interests.

You said the same thing in 2003, but with Iraq, Bush and Cheney.

Admit it.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Are you at all familiar with the plight of the various Christian communities in the Mid-East?

I am.
They should probably fucking move to someplace safer.

Just like all them trailer trash folks in the Midwest?

[Frisivisia]

The UN made anti chemical weapon legislation themselves, they'll probably do something.

America isn't and shouldn't be the world police. If something goes wrong we can't be the only ones to do something.

But because the UN does not have the powers to be the World police, we have to.

I'm all for the UN having a real army, one that can stop this kind of shit and kill the monsters that live in the shit holes like Syria or Sudan. I want America to take a breath and relax from fighting for once.

But till that day happens, the US arm forces have to do what no one else will do.

The problem with the UN World Police, of course, being that if Russia and China decide that a genocide works for them, the UN can just not get involved. I feel a lot better with America as the world's major source of hard power.

[The Scientific States]

Thousands of civilians were killed by chemical weapons.

Your point?

Rebels attack Christians just because of their faith. Therefore, America cannot support the rebels.

All X=Y

Two rebels kill Christians, therefore all rebels are the same am I right?

I don't support the rebels, but I support the innocent people of Syria being affected by all this crap.

It'll be even worse if the US uses military force, it'll just hurt more people and devastate more. But we can't sit by and let innocents die. Something must be done, just not military force.

[Shofercia]

This ^

But I'm wary of the reaction from Russia and China, if they decide to retaliate to "help" Assad.

Do you honestly think that Russia and China are on his side and will retaliate if he's attacked?

Yes. The question is "to what extent?" A bombing retaliation ain't the only kind. Obviously they're not going to hit America with bombs, or cause WWII> But there are numerous things that they can do, either covertly, or through diplomacy. For instance, they can make SCO an full fledged military alliance and invite Iran into it. The only reason Iran ain't a member, is International Sanctions. If America disrespects International Law in the eyes of Russia and China, they can disrespect America, (who proposed some of the sanctions,) right back.

[Dangelia]

I am.
They should probably fucking move to someplace safer.

Just like all them trailer trash folks in the Midwest?

Syria is an important place in the church, they can't just move. It's like Jews leaving Jerusalem and saying "Burn it down".

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Just like all them trailer trash folks in the Midwest?

Syria is an important place in the church, they can't just move. It's like Jews leaving Jerusalem and saying "Burn it down".

Yeah, I was being a little completely facetious.

[Orcoa]

But because the UN does not have the powers to be the World police, we have to.

I'm all for the UN having a real army, one that can stop this kind of shit and kill the monsters that live in the shit holes like Syria or Sudan. I want America to take a breath and relax from fighting for once.

But till that day happens, the US arm forces have to do what no one else will do.

The problem with the UN World Police, of course, being that if Russia and China decide that a genocide works for them, the UN can just not get involved. I feel a lot better with America as the world's major source of hard power.

Then make the UN world police so powerful, so dangerous, and so monstrous that even Russia or China would not want to even move a finger.

If you want to scare monsters, you become a bigger badder one.

But of course that is not what people want.

[Frisivisia]

Most Americans don't have the experience or knowledge that Kerry and Obama have. There's a reason that we don't vote on troop movements and logistics, and that's because the people don't have the training or the intelligence to make the best decision for US and world interests.

You said the same thing in 2003, but with Iraq, Bush and Cheney.

Admit it.

Bush and Cheney were unelected hawks, but at the time, that was the best intelligence the American people were given. One shitty war brokered by shitty people does not an invalidation of the concept of US intervention make.

[Shofercia]

"But clearly, it could never be rebels. Because they don't possess those kinds of weapons."
"How do you know?"
"Well, we said so!"

If the same style of argumentation was used to oppose Gay Marriage, NSG would be ripping these arguments to shreds, because they're circular in nature, along the lines of "we said so, ergo it's right!"

When you are a primary source, "because I said so" is a completely valid argument.

The primary sources for Assad using chemical weapons are... those who want to depose him? Lolwut.

[Blasveck]

Just like all them trailer trash folks in the Midwest?

Syria is an important place in the church, they can't just move. It's like Jews leaving Jerusalem and saying "Burn it down".

Then they should fucking realize the situation they put themselves in.

Its their choice to stay.

They should understand the situation and the consequences.

[The Scientific States]

The UN made anti chemical weapon legislation themselves, they'll probably do something.

America isn't and shouldn't be the world police. If something goes wrong we can't be the only ones to do something.

But because the UN does not have the powers to be the World police, we have to.

I'm all for the UN having a real army, one that can stop this kind of shit and kill the monsters that live in the shit holes like Syria or Sudan. I want America to take a breath and relax from fighting for once.

But till that day happens, the US arm forces have to do what no one else will do.

I also support a standing army made by the UN, and the US should do something and encourage other countries to do something.

But this is not the right thing to do. It's to big of a step. Force shouldn't be the first option.

[Frisivisia]

The problem with the UN World Police, of course, being that if Russia and China decide that a genocide works for them, the UN can just not get involved. I feel a lot better with America as the world's major source of hard power.

Then make the UN world police so powerful, so dangerous, and so monstrous that even Russia or China would not want to even move a finger.

If you want to scare monsters, you become a bigger badder one.

But of course that is not what people want.

No, Russia and China are big in the UN, and therefore they could just stop it from doing whatever.

[The Scientific States]

But because the UN does not have the powers to be the World police, we have to.

I'm all for the UN having a real army, one that can stop this kind of shit and kill the monsters that live in the shit holes like Syria or Sudan. I want America to take a breath and relax from fighting for once.

But till that day happens, the US arm forces have to do what no one else will do.

The problem with the UN World Police, of course, being that if Russia and China decide that a genocide works for them, the UN can just not get involved. I feel a lot better with America as the world's major source of hard power.

Another good point, but as I've said countless times we shouldn't jump straight to force and military intervention.

[Dangelia]

Syria is an important place in the church, they can't just move. It's like Jews leaving Jerusalem and saying "Burn it down".

Then they should fucking realize the situation they put themselves in.

Its their choice to stay.

They should understand the situation and the consequences.

In Orthodoxy, it's considered an honour to be a martyr for your faith. To put in perspective, it's like taking a bullet for your wife (or husband).

[Orcoa]

Then make the UN world police so powerful, so dangerous, and so monstrous that even Russia or China would not want to even move a finger.

If you want to scare monsters, you become a bigger badder one.

But of course that is not what people want.

No, Russia and China are big in the UN, and therefore they could just stop it from doing whatever.

If anything, I would love nothing more to see both of them kicked out.

But hey, international politics don't work that way so we have to deal with them.

[Frisivisia]

When you are a primary source, "because I said so" is a completely valid argument.

The primary sources for Assad using chemical weapons are... those who want to depose him? Lolwut.

Or maybe we want to depose him because we found out he had chemical weapons.

Either way, I can't tell whether you just don't understand international politics and intelligence or you're being purposefully obtuse due to your vision being clouded by bad memories of Iraq.

[Shofercia]

Still waiting for evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assad did it, cause we said so, trust us" is still not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have intel from multiple nations saying "yeah, he fucking gassed them". Do we second-guess a reporter when he writes about something?

I sincerely hope so. US is about to go to war with a country in the Middle East. Again. I'd certainly want to see the actual reason. But if the government fails to trust the people with actual data, why should the people trust the government, that has a past history of lying when it comes to wars in the Middle East?

[Frisivisia]

Then they should fucking realize the situation they put themselves in.

Its their choice to stay.

They should understand the situation and the consequences.

In Orthodoxy, it's considered an honour to be a martyr for your faith.

Which is fucking batshit insane and dangerous.

We have intel from multiple nations saying "yeah, he fucking gassed them". Do we second-guess a reporter when he writes about something?

I sincerely hope so. US is about to go to war with a country in the Middle East. Again. I'd certainly want to see the actual reason. But if the government fails to trust the people with actual data, why should the people trust the government, that has a past history of lying when it comes to wars in the Middle East?

Neville, is that you?