World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Pulsar_t]

[Pulsar_t]

I can't get used to images like this.. The whole leaky boat phenomenon has to end, ending the wars is a good start.

[BoringSupreez]

I don't get this one. I thought the general consensus was that a war in Syria would have been a second Iraq? Or did the artist support the war in Iraq as well?

[Blu]

I don't think Europe was willing to entertain the idea of stepping in at the cost of European lives. I think considering the loss of Syrian lives at this point and all those displaced from their homes, that even something of an intervention on the behalf of the UN/NATO/Someone would've been better than what we're currently seeing.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't get this one. I thought the general consensus was that a war in Syria would have been a second Iraq? Or did the artist support the war in Iraq as well?

I think this comic explains the "position" of the artist very clearly. Take note of the title for extra bonus points:

Dry-Bones-Gaza.jpg (150.14 KiB) Viewed 607 times

So yeah.

I don't think Europe was willing to entertain the idea of stepping in at the cost of European lives. I think considering the loss of Syrian lives at this point and all those displaced from their homes, that even something of an intervention on the behalf of the UN/NATO/Someone would've been better than what we're currently seeing.

Europe is a weasel word that could mean an assortment of wildly different countries and organizations, I don't think it helps to the discussion to use it.

But first, the idea that an outsider force should invade Syria and support a heavily fragmented side in a radical, sectarian civil war that has no political or cultural relationship with the invader is extremely debatable in and on itself, "European lives" is a red herring because it assumes an invasion would be desirable in the first place.

Still, some European nations are involved, both Britain and France support the rebels alongside the US, while Russia supported the goverment.

Personally, I don't think there's a solution to this, only less-bad choices.

[Blu]

But first, the idea that an outsider force should invade Syria and support a heavily fragmented side in a radical, sectarian civil war that has no political or cultural relationship with the invader is extremely debatable in and on itself, "European lives" is a red herring because it assumes an invasion would be desirable in the first place.

Still, some European nations are involved, both Britain and France support the rebels alongside the US, while Russia supported the goverment.

Personally, I don't think there's a solution to this, only less-bad choices.

Ah yes, sorry I blanketed my statement using an entire continent. My error. The nations that could stand to intervene haven't. I don't necessarily think it's a red herring. Anytime you want to insert a peacekeeping force there's the risk of bloodshed and loss of life for the intervening country's military.

There's obviously a difference between a peacekeeping force and launching a full-scale invasion. In hindsight, would it have been more beneficial to drop in some troops to prevent a all-out civil war? Or would such an action just delay the inevitable? For example, did our intervention during the Lebanon Civil War after Israel invaded and many countries intervened by forming the Multinational Force in Lebanon aid in the effort to stabilize the country? Because even after that, the fighting and infighting went on until 1990.

There were calls to action as early as some of the first skirmishes and uprisings, yet there was nothing but inaction on the US' behalf, probably because of the unpopularity of our involvement in Iraq and fighting ten years there and in Afghanistan.

What will continue to happen is more and more loss of human life, destruction of lots of human history, and expanding vacuum across the region.

[Pulsar_t]

And thousands of refugees drowning in the sea, and hundreds of thousands of other refugees who are never going back.

[MrPopo]

Kid posing for selfie - kills self:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tex ... ar-AAdSbyO

That's natural selection in action.

[Pulsar_t]

I never feel sorry for people with narcissistic tendencies to take selfies of themselves all the bloody time, but for it to reach self-termination.. That's sad in a befuddling way.

[BoringSupreez]

But first, the idea that an outsider force should invade Syria and support a heavily fragmented side in a radical, sectarian civil war that has no political or cultural relationship with the invader is extremely debatable in and on itself, "European lives" is a red herring because it assumes an invasion would be desirable in the first place.

Still, some European nations are involved, both Britain and France support the rebels alongside the US, while Russia supported the goverment.

Personally, I don't think there's a solution to this, only less-bad choices.

Ah yes, sorry I blanketed my statement using an entire continent. My error. The nations that could stand to intervene haven't. I don't necessarily think it's a red herring. Anytime you want to insert a peacekeeping force there's the risk of bloodshed and loss of life for the intervening country's military.

There's obviously a difference between a peacekeeping force and launching a full-scale invasion. In hindsight, would it have been more beneficial to drop in some troops to prevent a all-out civil war? Or would such an action just delay the inevitable? For example, did our intervention during the Lebanon Civil War after Israel invaded and many countries intervened by forming the Multinational Force in Lebanon aid in the effort to stabilize the country? Because even after that, the fighting and infighting went on until 1990.

There were calls to action as early as some of the first skirmishes and uprisings, yet there was nothing but inaction on the US' behalf, probably because of the unpopularity of our involvement in Iraq and fighting ten years there and in Afghanistan.

What will continue to happen is more and more loss of human life, destruction of lots of human history, and expanding vacuum across the region.

I think we made the right choice by not stepping in. Yes, the situation over there is awful, but what would our end point have been? We'd have been stuck over there for 10+ years, again.

Sad as it is to say, there's only two forces in recent history that have been able to maintain any sense of stability in the middle east: colonialism by western powers, and iron-fisted dictatorships. Nothing else works over there.