Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Draconius GO
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old August 31st, 2013 (3:05 PM). Edited August 31st, 2013 by zakisrage.
zakisrage's Avatar
zakisrage zakisrage is offline
In the trunk on Highway 10
     
    Join Date: Aug 2013
    Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
    Age: 22
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Impish
    Posts: 502
    Not to mention that there's thousands of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt. And the sad thing is that many of the people in those countries haven't been receptive to the new arrivals. Turkey and Syria hate each other because of a border dispute from the 1930s. The Egyptians and Lebanese have also been very hostile, even though they are fellow Arab countries.

    I think this invasion is a good idea. al-Assad is a monster and needs to be removed. I really want the Syrians to have a better government, and try not to let the Islamists take over.

    And you're right about France and Syria hating each other. I'm from Lebanon, which was also taken by France. Lebanon has a much more positive relationship with France. Still, a lot of people here hate the French. My maternal grandma's parents never forgave France for taking over Lebanon. They hated everything French and spoke only Arabic. (Many upper-class Christians preferred not to speak Arabic, and a lot of them preferred using French names for their children instead of Arabic names. Arabic was seen as something that Muslims, Druze, and lower-class Christians used.)
    Reply With Quote

    Relevant Advertising!

      #27    
    Old August 31st, 2013 (4:44 PM).
    Sir Codin's Avatar
    Sir Codin Sir Codin is offline
    Welcome to the Federation Starship: USS Buttcrack
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: California Republic
    Age: 26
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Quirky
    Posts: 3,756
    Problem is, zaki, is that the rebels the Assad regime are fighting against aren't really made up of saints, either. They're mostly absorbed into the Al-Nursa front, which is essentially al-Qaeda's Syrian branch. I don't think aiding the rebels is necessarily a good idea. Scarf is correct in that we should probably provide humanitarian aide to the refugee's, but no, everybody's busy preparing for military action instead.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #28    
    Old August 31st, 2013 (4:49 PM).
    Kanzler's Avatar
    Kanzler Kanzler is offline
    naughty biscotti
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: Jul 2008
    Location: Toronto
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Relaxed
    Posts: 5,922
    Mmhm it's going to be an incredible balancing act. This kind of reminds me of the Chinese Civil War, when the Communists and Nationalists (Islamists & moderates) fought on a united front against the Japanese invasion (Baath Party) - and then duked it out amongst themselves once the greater threat was taken out.

    Israeli citizens seem to be in gogogo mode. We mustn't forget there are other players here with their own agendas.
    Reply With Quote
      #29    
    Old August 31st, 2013 (7:57 PM).
    Entermaid's Avatar
    Entermaid Entermaid is offline
       
      Join Date: Jan 2013
      Location: The States
      Gender: Other
      Nature: Adamant
      Posts: 2,148
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
      The US and others should provide humanitarian aid instead of weapons and military intervention.
      I wish this could be done, but history demonstrates otherwise. For instance, during the Rwanda Crisis of 1994, the Clinton Administration decided to use non-military force and provide humanitarian aid. We sent humanitarian aid via airdrops; however, the supplies were intercepted by militant forces of the regime and the US soldiers sent to oversee peaceful distribution of the supplies were quickly driven out. If we are to aid in this fashion, we can only do so using some sort of military force in order to protect our soldiers and ensure the supplies are distributed to citizens rather than the Assad Regime. Though, using military action, like you point out, could be high caustic to international relations. Therefore, humanitarian aid may not be a viable option.
      __________________
      #Team Popplio & Brionne
      Reply With Quote
        #30    
      Old September 1st, 2013 (3:27 AM).
      Kanzler's Avatar
      Kanzler Kanzler is offline
      naughty biscotti
      • Crystal Tier
       
      Join Date: Jul 2008
      Location: Toronto
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Relaxed
      Posts: 5,922
      It's still lighter than military strikes, if anything. If you can't send humanitarian aid, I wouldn't see how you could do anything at all. The go-ahead for a military intervention awaits approval from Congress in the US.
      Reply With Quote
        #31    
      Old September 1st, 2013 (7:00 AM).
      Livewire's Avatar
      Livewire Livewire is offline
      • Platinum Tier
       
      Join Date: Jul 2009
      Location: Sunnyshore City
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Adamant
      Posts: 14,265
      Asking for congressional approval first is a great breath of fresh air, compared to invading other nations all willy-nilly using vague war power statutes. A step in the right direction.
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #32    
      Old September 1st, 2013 (7:11 AM).
      KingCharizard's Avatar
      KingCharizard KingCharizard is offline
      C++ Developer Extraordinaire
         
        Join Date: Dec 2009
        Location: Pennsylvania
        Age: 29
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Bold
        Posts: 1,250
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
        Asking for congressional approval first is a great breath of fresh air, compared to invading other nations all willy-nilly using vague war power statutes. A step in the right direction.
        I agree, but from his speech it sounded like he was going in anyways this was just a formality...

        Quote:
        I think this invasion is a good idea. al-Assad is a monster and needs to be removed. I really want the Syrians to have a better government, and try not to let the Islamists take over.
        I think Obama has already said he is not interested in regime change, so his military action is not aimed at that...

        I think we should stay out of it completely, no humanitarian aid, no boots on the ground, no air strike.. Let the surrounding countries offer aid, why doesn't Israel get off its high horse and offer some help.
        Since Iran liked Syria so much why dont they offer aid? The rebels started this war let them finish it.. Did everyone forget war is nasty and you must do nasty things to win, its that simple.. People are so soft these days.
        __________________
        Reply With Quote
          #33    
        Old September 1st, 2013 (7:15 AM).
        Livewire's Avatar
        Livewire Livewire is offline
        • Platinum Tier
         
        Join Date: Jul 2009
        Location: Sunnyshore City
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Adamant
        Posts: 14,265
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
        I agree, but from his speech it sounded like he was going in anyways this was just a formality...
        He's not that stupid, to ask for congressional approval, then ignore what they say (If they were to rule out U.S. involvement). Too much political blow-back and repercussions.
        Reply With Quote
          #34    
        Old September 1st, 2013 (8:30 AM).
        KingCharizard's Avatar
        KingCharizard KingCharizard is offline
        C++ Developer Extraordinaire
           
          Join Date: Dec 2009
          Location: Pennsylvania
          Age: 29
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Bold
          Posts: 1,250
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
          He's not that stupid, to ask for congressional approval, then ignore what they say (If they were to rule out U.S. involvement). Too much political blow-back and repercussions.
          True but at this point what has he got to lose? Dems already have a slight majority in the senate, and congress is filled with republicans so I dont really see a downside to him going with the strike even if they say no. Its not like Obama could be impeached.

          This was taken from a news article.

          Quote:
          Does Obama really have to wait for Congress' green light?
          Technically, no. The 1973 War Powers Act allows the president to launch military action, but he must notify Congress within 48 hours. But just because he can doesn't mean he will. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said Saturday. "We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual."
          Reply With Quote
            #35    
          Old September 1st, 2013 (6:49 PM).
          Kanzler's Avatar
          Kanzler Kanzler is offline
          naughty biscotti
          • Crystal Tier
           
          Join Date: Jul 2008
          Location: Toronto
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Relaxed
          Posts: 5,922
          I think it's a good idea he did ask for congressional approval. The American public would much rather see military action as the result of calculated debate as well as cross-partisan support. Support is iffy in both parties. Technically no, but the rest of us outside of the President's inner circle want to feel included in the decision making too.
          Reply With Quote
            #36    
          Old September 2nd, 2013 (8:03 PM).
          KingCharizard's Avatar
          KingCharizard KingCharizard is offline
          C++ Developer Extraordinaire
             
            Join Date: Dec 2009
            Location: Pennsylvania
            Age: 29
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Bold
            Posts: 1,250
            Now they are talking about aiding the Rebels
            http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

            I thought the Rebels were mostly made up of Al Qaeda supporters/followers... So were in the business of aiding our enemies if it means getting rid of a leader we dont agree with, god i wish someone would do that to the USA put us in our damn place and make us mind our own business. The US is like a big bully, who when confronted about being a bully by his parents, says, Im teaching them life is hard you gotta be willing to fight back or you're gonna lose everything to justify his bullying to try to make it seem right..

            No matter how you look at it, its not right and neither is our meddling....
            Reply With Quote
              #37    
            Old September 4th, 2013 (12:01 PM).
            Livewire's Avatar
            Livewire Livewire is offline
            • Platinum Tier
             
            Join Date: Jul 2009
            Location: Sunnyshore City
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Adamant
            Posts: 14,265
            The Senate has passed a resolution to aide the Syrian rebels, but with no U.S. troop commitments. So it'll be airstrikes/drones/naval support from the fleet in the Mediterranean.
            Reply With Quote
              #38    
            Old September 4th, 2013 (5:00 PM).
            Silais's Avatar
            Silais Silais is offline
            That useless reptile
               
              Join Date: Jul 2013
              Gender: Female
              Nature: Quiet
              Posts: 297
              Why does the government care so much about chemical weapons now when there have been times where we've completely ignored the use of chemical weapons by other countries? The "threat" of chemical weapons is an obvious facade to cover up the true intentions of the president and the government.
              __________________
              Reply With Quote
                #39    
              Old September 4th, 2013 (5:10 PM).
              Mr. X's Avatar
              Mr. X Mr. X is offline
              It's... kinda effective?
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Oct 2006
              Location: London
              Age: 24
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Quiet
              Posts: 2,386
              I wonder...

              If the US is going to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, what will Britain's punishment be for providing them? They sold Syria mass quantities of chemicals easily combinable into Sarin, after the civil war started. They sold them chemicals to make Sarin, when fears were arising that he was or either would start using chemical weapons.

              That said, it's sad that we are getting involved in this. Neither side is one we should be supporting, Assad for his use of chemical weapons, or the Rebels who are receiving a lot of support from a terrorist group that has attacked us numerous times in the past.

              I suppose that this is a prime example of screwed if you do, ****ed if you don't. Providing support for the Rebels is support by proxy of Al Qaeda, and people will call the US's refusal to aid the rebels as supporting Assad.

              Once we take out Assad, then what? The rebels, backed by Al Qaeda, will move to establish a new government. And for Al Qaeda, they will have ripe new grounds to expand.

              Either way, when it comes to Syria, the US is going to get screwed over.

              Even then, I don't see what the US hopes to accomplish. Apparently we plan to attack Syria for humanitarian reasons? Well, I suppose that our opinions differ, but I don't really see how missiles and bombs can be used to provide humanitarian aid to a country. Perhaps we are going to fill them with medical supplies instead of the standard explosives? Although, if we do end up bombing Syria, I really hope that our accuracy has improved since Iraq - We ended up killing many civilians, many children (Ironically, the ones that we were 'trying' to protect, 'trying' to 'save'.) when we decided to bomb Iraq.
              Reply With Quote
                #40    
              Old September 4th, 2013 (7:42 PM). Edited September 7th, 2013 by Livewire.
              Kanzler's Avatar
              Kanzler Kanzler is offline
              naughty biscotti
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Jul 2008
              Location: Toronto
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Relaxed
              Posts: 5,922
              I found my notes on responsibility to protect!

              Okay okay okay. So military interventions are often fraught with moral issues - sometimes you do it, sometimes you don't, but when you do it's to support the team you like. So begged the question, when would it be appropriate to intervene for humanitarian reasons? Well, a couple of smart dudes, mostly Canadian, framed it as a responsibility to protect - that states have a responsibility to protect its populations from certain mass crimes, and that the international community will help a state achieve this end, and if it fails, step in to fulfill that responsibility. Notice how it's framed as a responsibility - under such a norm you "must". The details are often iffy yadda yadda, but it's a great idea in principle, it makes sense, and I haven't heard any disagreements against that yet.

              The best bit of the argument to me is that states have responsibilities, in addition to its sovereign rights. If sovereign rights were all that's needed to justify a state's action, then human rights would be absolutely meaningless. So logic = win, and apply that responsibility not to states only, but to the international humanity and you have R2P in a nutshell.

              Some caveats: humanitarian intent? haha, no - Libya turned into regime change. An intervention would also need a reasonable prospect of success, and I'm sure all those intervening hope for it. But can they deliver it? and at a cost we citizens can stomach? It should also have approval by proper authorities. The Arab League calls for an intervention from the UN and the international community - it'll probably get one, but only from one of the two. The UN is the ultimate authority, in the ideal and principled sense, but should lack of UN decision mean an intervention should not proceed? Lastly, one that is well expressed in this thread so far - it doesn't work.

              There is another interesting criticism in my notes: that a Western intervention isn't about them, but us - that the West would do such a thing to feel all good and "Western", about maintaining the West's prestige and image. It's a very interesting one, because of course you're saving lives and nobody should decry that as a bad thing, but it's all self-aggrandizement in the end, is it? Compare it to rich people donating their wealth so they can leave behind a "legacy": noble or douchey? Can it be both?


              Please don't auto-combine ><

              UN chief warns against strikes on Syria
              Ban Ki-moon says that military action against Syria could lead to a worsening of sectarian violence in the country.

              Quote:
              UN chief Ban Ki-moon has made an impassioned plea against military action in Syria, warning that it could spark further sectarian violence in a country already suffering from a humanitarian crisis "unprecedented" in recent history.

              Speaking at a humanitarian meeting hosted by Britain on the sidelines of the G20 summit on Friday, Ban called on world powers to put aside their differences over the Syrian conflict, and to take concerted action to get desperately needed aid to the population.

              "I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences, and with an increased threat of further sectarian violence," Ban said.

              About a third of Syria's pre-war 20.8 million population has fled abroad or have been forced from their homes during the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's regime which is now in its third year, UN refugee agency data showed.

              "This is a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in recent history," Ban said.

              But "as some flee the country, others dig in to fight," Ban said, pointing to the need therefore to "avoid further militarisation of the conflict and revitalise the search for a political settlement instead."

              With a political solution proving elusive as world leaders dig in their heels over their entrenched positions, Ban called for unity in securing humanitarian aid for the population.

              Food aid shortage

              A funding shortage was also threatening to leave refugees in neighbouring countries with no food, he said, adding that stocks would run out within days in Lebanon and within two weeks in Jordan.

              "The world must do everything within its powers to stop the suffering of the Syrian people. Let us use this united recognition of the problem as our starting point for focused and positive action," he said.

              "Your support in exercising leverage on all parties to facilitate humanitarian access is critical."

              On Thursday, the UN refugee agency said that from October, it will have to cut food aid to more than a quarter of Syrian refugees in Lebanon...
              From the UN top dog, unintended consequences? As an advocate and moderator, his opinion must count for something, even if he has no real power. He didn't say how he would come to this conclusion, but perhaps (US limited scope intervention) + (Syria disintegrating already) = (Syria disintegrating faster in the wake of an intervention with nothing done about it because that's not what the US is going there for). Thoughts?



              Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...721727957.html
              Reply With Quote
                #41    
              Old September 7th, 2013 (8:34 AM).
              Sir Codin's Avatar
              Sir Codin Sir Codin is offline
              Welcome to the Federation Starship: USS Buttcrack
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: May 2012
              Location: California Republic
              Age: 26
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Quirky
              Posts: 3,756
              "Limited scope intervention," my left ass cheek.

              You throw missiles at a country, it's an act of war, nothing more or less. The U.S. should definitely heed the UN's warning about escalation of violence.
              Reply With Quote
                #42    
              Old September 7th, 2013 (9:09 AM).
              Kanzler's Avatar
              Kanzler Kanzler is offline
              naughty biscotti
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Jul 2008
              Location: Toronto
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Relaxed
              Posts: 5,922
              By limited I suppose an oversimplified but accurate-enough picture would be the US making a mess and not cleaning it up. I guess Ban calculated that it was pretty clear nobody is going to bother with cleaning Syria up, so there's no point adding more fuel to the fire.
              Reply With Quote
                #43    
              Old September 7th, 2013 (7:54 PM).
              Mr. X's Avatar
              Mr. X Mr. X is offline
              It's... kinda effective?
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Oct 2006
              Location: London
              Age: 24
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Quiet
              Posts: 2,386
              So, apparently we need to bomb the hell out of Syria to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on Assads chemical weapons.

              We are not putting troops on the ground. We are going to be bombing them from range, be it up in the sky or floating at sea. I'm sure that Assad is protecting his stockpiles. The Rebels are being supported by Al-Quaeda. We don't intend to attack the Rebels.

              Assad knows these weapons are powerful, he's going to have his military guarding them. We go in and bomb his military, then who will guard those weapons to ensure terrorists don't get them? The Rebels? They are being supported by the terrorists, so can we honestly expect them not to pass some their way in gratitude for their help?
              Reply With Quote
                #44    
              Old September 7th, 2013 (9:41 PM).
              «Chuckles»'s Avatar
              «Chuckles» «Chuckles» is offline
              A Man With A Future
                 
                Join Date: Jul 2013
                Location: Central Coast, Australia
                Gender: Male
                Posts: 1,547
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
                So, apparently we need to bomb the hell out of Syria to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on Assads chemical weapons.

                We are not putting troops on the ground. We are going to be bombing them from range, be it up in the sky or floating at sea. I'm sure that Assad is protecting his stockpiles. The Rebels are being supported by Al-Quaeda. We don't intend to attack the Rebels.

                Assad knows these weapons are powerful, he's going to have his military guarding them. We go in and bomb his military, then who will guard those weapons to ensure terrorists don't get them? The Rebels? They are being supported by the terrorists, so can we honestly expect them not to pass some their way in gratitude for their help?
                in a nutshell...

                honestly why should america interfere with other countries problems they will be the reason for next world war I tell ya'
                Reply With Quote
                  #45    
                Old September 7th, 2013 (10:32 PM).
                OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire's Avatar
                OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire is offline
                10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
                   
                  Join Date: Apr 2010
                  Location: Oregon
                  Age: 23
                  Gender: Male
                  Nature: Careful
                  Posts: 17,509
                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by chuckleslucifer View Post
                  in a nutshell...

                  honestly why should america interfere with other countries problems they will be the reason for next world war I tell ya'
                  I feel the same way. We should stay out of it. I know there's bloodshed right now but if we try to step in militarily it could cause more in the long term I feel. The terrorists supporting the rebels will grab a hold of the Chemical weapons that weren't blown up in the chaos and use them against each other after Assad is taken out if not against Europe, Israel, and the United States itself (likely Israel as it's their closest target). Actually I think it's suicidal of Israel to be supporting these airstrikes... they will be attacked either by Assad's force as retribution, or by the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels at a later date...either way I don't see a win for them if this is to happen.
                  Now Russia is also an issue, as an attack on Syria could cause them to attack at us for hitting their ally...remember Syria is to Russia as Israel is the US.
                  __________________
                  I'm currently working on some novels. If you're interested you can read them here:
                  https://www.wattpad.com/user/ImperialSun
                  Reply With Quote
                    #46    
                  Old September 7th, 2013 (11:44 PM).
                  «Chuckles»'s Avatar
                  «Chuckles» «Chuckles» is offline
                  A Man With A Future
                     
                    Join Date: Jul 2013
                    Location: Central Coast, Australia
                    Gender: Male
                    Posts: 1,547
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by Magmaruby and Aquasapphire View Post
                    I feel the same way. We should stay out of it. I know there's bloodshed right now but if we try to step in militarily it could cause more in the long term I feel. The terrorists supporting the rebels will grab a hold of the Chemical weapons that weren't blown up in the chaos and use them against each other after Assad is taken out if not against Europe, Israel, and the United States itself (likely Israel as it's their closest target). Actually I think it's suicidal of Israel to be supporting these airstrikes... they will be attacked either by Assad's force as retribution, or by the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels at a later date...either way I don't see a win for them if this is to happen.
                    Now Russia is also an issue, as an attack on Syria could cause them to attack at us for hitting their ally...remember Syria is to Russia as Israel is the US.
                    Yeah and by another military jumping into the fray only more will die troops shooting civilians because they were "armed" and "threatening" them by waving their hands screaming for help but they cant take "chances" and it was a "mistake" and all that other crap soldiers are robots they are told to shoot when to shoot not to question when ordered and to feel no remorse at the time even if they no full well what or who they are shooting.

                    ~Peace
                    Reply With Quote
                      #47    
                    Old September 8th, 2013 (4:39 AM). Edited September 8th, 2013 by Mr. X.
                    Mr. X's Avatar
                    Mr. X Mr. X is offline
                    It's... kinda effective?
                    • Crystal Tier
                     
                    Join Date: Oct 2006
                    Location: London
                    Age: 24
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Quiet
                    Posts: 2,386
                    The odd's of Russia attacking are slim, however Putin has said he'd be sending AA systems to Syria should we attack. He could end up sending more equipment as well.

                    And people think the cold war ended a couple decades ago. It hasn't, some players just changed and a few more got added.

                    Edit - Fox News right now, Cruz says that we should force a UN vote, and if China and Russia vote No then we should move to sell F-16's to Taiwan and start work on establishing missile defense systems in Europe. Brilliant idea - Provoke them, give them reason to throw even more support to Syria.
                    Reply With Quote
                      #48    
                    Old September 8th, 2013 (12:41 PM).
                    Silais's Avatar
                    Silais Silais is offline
                    That useless reptile
                       
                      Join Date: Jul 2013
                      Gender: Female
                      Nature: Quiet
                      Posts: 297
                      This all has to do with Iran. Bomb Syria, and send the message to Iranians that we don't play around with nuclear and chemical weapons. It's despicable how vehemently politicians are lying about this issue. The vast majority of the American public does not want to go into another country and engage in another war that would deplete our resources and pocket money; but what does the government or president care about our desires?
                      Reply With Quote
                        #49    
                      Old September 8th, 2013 (7:17 PM).
                      Livewire's Avatar
                      Livewire Livewire is offline
                      • Platinum Tier
                       
                      Join Date: Jul 2009
                      Location: Sunnyshore City
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Adamant
                      Posts: 14,265
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
                      The odd's of Russia attacking are slim, however Putin has said he'd be sending AA systems to Syria should we attack. He could end up sending more equipment as well.

                      And people think the cold war ended a couple decades ago. It hasn't, some players just changed and a few more got added.

                      Edit - Fox News right now, Cruz says that we should force a UN vote, and if China and Russia vote No then we should move to sell F-16's to Taiwan and start work on establishing missile defense systems in Europe. Brilliant idea - Provoke them, give them reason to throw even more support to Syria.
                      Which is why Ted Cruz is a looney. We'd be staring down WWIII if he were president.
                      Reply With Quote
                        #50    
                      Old September 9th, 2013 (5:34 PM). Edited September 9th, 2013 by Netto Azure.
                      Netto Azure's Avatar
                      Netto Azure Netto Azure is offline
                      Elliot Craig
                      • Gold Tier
                       
                      Join Date: May 2008
                      Location: Thors Academy, Erebonian Empire
                      Age: 25
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Brave
                      Posts: 9,561
                      I, personally, have been war weary for many years now. And am against the whole idea of throwing gasoline into the fire. Yes it's abhorrent that chemical weapons were used. But conventional weapons used at the outset kills just as well and gruesome, yet we didn't try to mediate any transition or diplomacy.

                      Still the idea going through congress is more of a half-measure than anything. Even then nobody talks about the huge refugee crisis that resulted from this civil war which already is showing signs of destabilizing Lebanon, and Jordanian infrastructure starting to get stretched to its limits absorbing the Syrian refugees.

                      So yeah, if the resolution passes (which at best will limit the engagement to 60-90 days of no fly zones and firing cruise missiles) we get dragged in, look meddling in an already complicated conflict and basically don't alter much of the stalemate between the two sides.
                      __________________
                      Reply With Quote
                      Reply

                      Quick Reply

                      Join the conversation!

                      Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

                      Create a PokéCommunity Account

                      Sponsored Links
                      Thread Tools

                      Posting Rules
                      You may not post new threads
                      You may not post replies
                      You may not post attachments
                      You may not edit your posts

                      BB code is On
                      Smilies are On
                      [IMG] code is On
                      HTML code is Off

                      Forum Jump


                      All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:21 PM.