World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Pulsar_t]

Putin is a little mouthy rascal haha..

Anyway we won't see military action for at least another ten days.

[BoringSupreez]

Honestly, I don't want us to get involved at all. This really has nothing to do with us unless we make it that way.

[o.pwuaioc]

Honestly, I don't want us to get involved at all. This really has nothing to do with us unless we make it that way.

Innocent civilians are dying and Assad is breaking international law. How is that not about us? It's far more about us than Saddam Hussein's non-existence chemical stockpile under Bush I.

[BoringSupreez]

Honestly, I don't want us to get involved at all. This really has nothing to do with us unless we make it that way.

Innocent civilians are dying and Assad is breaking international law. How is that not about us? It's far more about us than Saddam Hussein's non-existence chemical stockpile under Bush I.

I don't see how civilians dying in Syria concerns us any more than civilians dying in any other foreign country does, especially when the nation in question is unfriendly towards us and neither faction is worth supporting. As for our invasion of Iraq, that was under a different president and largely different congress so I don't see what that has to do with the present situation. Different time, different people. But, assuming we're going to be consistent with our previous governments' policies, we still have no reason to take action since we did nothing when Iraq used chemical weapons on civilians in the '80s.

[dsheinem]

Honestly, I don't want us to get involved at all. This really has nothing to do with us unless we make it that way.

Innocent civilians are dying and Assad is breaking international law. How is that not about us? It's far more about us than Saddam Hussein's non-existence chemical stockpile under Bush I.

I don't see how civilians dying in Syria concerns us any more than civilians dying in any other foreign country does,.

It's about chemical weapons, not deaths. Here's Obama's argument from today, FWIW:

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

[o.pwuaioc]

It's about chemical weapons, not deaths. Here's Obama's argument from today, FWIW:

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

It should be about both.

[Pulsar_t]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/31/world ... ?hpt=hp_t1

War is now official business gentlemen. Are we still looking at a ten day timeframe or is the strike going to be sooner? War is a ruse and the fascists should be caught with their pants down, so to speak.

Ass-hat has almost a quarter of a million prisoners and God knows how many will perish with the designated targets. We're talking monstrous despots here.

[jfrost]

I don't really buy the whole chemical weapons justification.

Yeah, there's the whole legalistic argument about international law. I still don't buy it. If we really care about international law, the US has no legal basis for invading, since invasions should be submitted to the UN's Security Council, and it won't be approved there.

My point is that any invasion here is not about international law at all, or chemical weapons.

Gas people, shoot them down, bomb their buildings, they're just as dead. The US has used depleted uranium in missiles in Iraq. I don't see as much commotion.

Assad has been committing war crimes for two years and all of a sudden he's a bad guy because we're pretending to care about international law? I think international law is a way we like to pretend that the world is governed by voluntary covenants instead of by force. The whole thing is that the US has to assert its so called "right" of intervention on this legal basis or the ideological justification for further wars would be weakened.

To my mind, at least the humanitarian justification of saving people in imminent danger makes more sense, even though in this case it would probably only make matters worse, the way it has in the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the case of Syria, probably more people would die and, as you guys might know, the Christians of the country would probably be prosecuted should the opposition gain strength.

[Gunstar Green]

The US has used depleted uranium in missiles in Iraq. I don't see as much commotion.

Because that's not exactly the same thing. There's controversy surrounding its use and arguments back and fourth about its safety but depleted uranium is considered legal for military use. It's not used as a poison, it's a very dense metal used for armor and armor piercing/high-kinetic damage rounds. We make a lot of ammunition out of it.

A lot of the concerns are more environmental than humanitarian anyway.

[Pulsar_t]

In the case of Syria, probably more people would die and, as you guys might know, the Christians of the country would probably be prosecuted should the opposition gain strength.

And Kurds and Alawites potentially as well, which is why the majority has to show civilised tolerance towards those minority groups if the country has any future after the possible collapse of the fascist regime.