Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 pm

Syria

Postby Egg » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:43 pm

We're not seriously about to start another mid-east war, are we? F**k Syria. F**k that entire region. There will NEVER be peace there. It's a waste of time trying. We've got our own problems.

I'm so thoroughly disgusted with this country's leadership. Both sides, Congress, and everything from top to bottom.

Spud Raider
User avatar
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Syria

Postby Synchronicity » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:01 pm

It might have made sense two years ago, back when we were intervening (successfully) in Libya at a time when the rebels were rather successful and well organized. But we're too late. The rebels have been losing, they've become so desperate that they've enlisted mercenaries, glory-hunters, jihadists, and Al Qaeda and are willing to go to any extreme to succeed. Because for these guys, they win or they die. There's no peaceful settlement.

So now when America intervenes and takes Assad down (because let's face it, we're not stopping at blowing up chemical weapons) the civil war will just continue. The rebels are fragmented and hate each other. Now they'll fight over the power vacuum. It'll be Egypt but if all the protesters had American-provided guns.

Syria is done for. All we're doing now is wasting money, putting American lives in jeopardy, and creating the possibility that we'll actually be dragged into a real war with other countries who are on Assad's side. And it's all because Obama had to say that chemical weapons were a red line. Since he said that and that line was crossed either America does something about it or ends up being a laughing stock where our soft power is meaningless. This is 100% Obama's fucking fault.
Image

Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Syria

Postby Egg » Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:44 pm


Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:02 pm

Re: Syria

Postby Natedog » Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:18 pm

Synchronicity wrote:It might have made sense two years ago, back when we were intervening (successfully) in Libya at a time when the rebels were rather successful and well organized. But we're too late. The rebels have been losing, they've become so desperate that they've enlisted mercenaries, glory-hunters, jihadists, and Al Qaeda and are willing to go to any extreme to succeed. Because for these guys, they win or they die. There's no peaceful settlement.

So now when America intervenes and takes Assad down (because let's face it, we're not stopping at blowing up chemical weapons) the civil war will just continue. The rebels are fragmented and hate each other. Now they'll fight over the power vacuum. It'll be Egypt but if all the protesters had American-provided guns.

Syria is done for. All we're doing now is wasting money, putting American lives in jeopardy, and creating the possibility that we'll actually be dragged into a real war with other countries who are on Assad's side. And it's all because Obama had to say that chemical weapons were a red line. Since he said that and that line was crossed either America does something about it or ends up being a laughing stock where our soft power is meaningless. This is 100% Obama's fucking fault.



I agree with this.

Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:36 am
Location: Definitely Not Seattle, Washington

Re: Syria

Postby One Fan To Another » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:31 pm

Synchronicity wrote:This is 100% Obama's fucking fault.


Heh, you must think a lot of Obama to believe that any one politician is one hundred percent at fault for anything. Every politician is replaceable, like, tomorrow. They shouldn't be credited for anything in particular.

I'd be more likely to take the opposing position; "Obama" created the red line so that he couldn't be talked out of it later. It's a forced imperative. The Bush administration, for example, used the same tactic to go into Iraq. Unfortunately for them they were caught in their own mechanism. Obama's tweak in the narration is an attempt to shift the paradigm in his administration's favor, publicly. So far it's not working - fool me once.....

Spud Raider
User avatar
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Syria

Postby Synchronicity » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:19 am

One Fan To Another wrote:
Synchronicity wrote:This is 100% Obama's fucking fault.


Heh, you must think a lot of Obama to believe that any one politician is one hundred percent at fault for anything. Every politician is replaceable, like, tomorrow. They shouldn't be credited for anything in particular.

I'd be more likely to take the opposing position; "Obama" created the red line so that he couldn't be talked out of it later. It's a forced imperative. The Bush administration, for example, used the same tactic to go into Iraq. Unfortunately for them they were caught in their own mechanism. Obama's tweak in the narration is an attempt to shift the paradigm in his administration's favor, publicly. So far it's not working - fool me once.....


Well that goes without saying. Obama represents the executive branch. In this context we can pinpoint the casus belli for American intervention within Obama's rhetoric and therefore we can blame him. It matters not what nebulous entity was truly behind it.
Image

Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:36 am
Location: Definitely Not Seattle, Washington

Re: Syria

Postby One Fan To Another » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:38 am

Synchronicity wrote:
One Fan To Another wrote:
Synchronicity wrote:This is 100% Obama's fucking fault.


Heh, you must think a lot of Obama to believe that any one politician is one hundred percent at fault for anything. Every politician is replaceable, like, tomorrow. They shouldn't be credited for anything in particular.

I'd be more likely to take the opposing position; "Obama" created the red line so that he couldn't be talked out of it later. It's a forced imperative. The Bush administration, for example, used the same tactic to go into Iraq. Unfortunately for them they were caught in their own mechanism. Obama's tweak in the narration is an attempt to shift the paradigm in his administration's favor, publicly. So far it's not working - fool me once.....


Well that goes without saying. Obama represents the executive branch. In this context we can pinpoint the casus belli for American intervention within Obama's rhetoric and therefore we can blame him. It matters not what nebulous entity was truly behind it.


Well, we can always drink to unified hate for politicians!

Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Syria

Postby Egg » Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:29 pm

I'm damn glad they backed away from this.

Spud Raider
User avatar
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Syria

Postby Synchronicity » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:53 pm

Egg wrote:I'm damn glad they backed away from this.


I wouldn't be quite so optimistic. The removal of decades of WMDs will necessitate a lot of coordination, cooperation, and boots on the ground. Unless this is to be a completely useless resolution where we just pretend Assad will fully comply, the US and Russia will have a very intimate hand in this civil war. The rebels, who have been counting on a US attack for their grand offensive, will probably do something to intercept these chemical weapons and prolong the war. There is so much that can go wrong between now and mid-2014 (when this will supposedly be "finished") that I'm not holding my breath.

Also, we've just codified the use of Chapter 7 of the UN charter, so if Assad bungles this you can bet the US will be right back to military intervention.
Image

Flyby Spud
User avatar
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Syria

Postby Egg » Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:41 pm

Synchronicity wrote:I wouldn't be quite so optimistic. The removal of decades of WMDs will necessitate a lot of coordination, cooperation, and boots on the ground. Unless this is to be a completely useless resolution where we just pretend Assad will fully comply, the US and Russia will have a very intimate hand in this civil war. The rebels, who have been counting on a US attack for their grand offensive, will probably do something to intercept these chemical weapons and prolong the war. There is so much that can go wrong between now and mid-2014 (when this will supposedly be "finished") that I'm not holding my breath.

Also, we've just codified the use of Chapter 7 of the UN charter, so if Assad bungles this you can bet the US will be right back to military intervention.


And we should care why? The people on both sides hate us, and any involvement will just cause them to hate us even more. I fail to see any incentive whatsoever for getting involved. It's a lose/lose situation.

Spud Raider
User avatar
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Syria

Postby Synchronicity » Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:41 pm

Egg wrote:
Synchronicity wrote:I wouldn't be quite so optimistic. The removal of decades of WMDs will necessitate a lot of coordination, cooperation, and boots on the ground. Unless this is to be a completely useless resolution where we just pretend Assad will fully comply, the US and Russia will have a very intimate hand in this civil war. The rebels, who have been counting on a US attack for their grand offensive, will probably do something to intercept these chemical weapons and prolong the war. There is so much that can go wrong between now and mid-2014 (when this will supposedly be "finished") that I'm not holding my breath.

Also, we've just codified the use of Chapter 7 of the UN charter, so if Assad bungles this you can bet the US will be right back to military intervention.


And we should care why? The people on both sides hate us, and any involvement will just cause them to hate us even more. I fail to see any incentive whatsoever for getting involved. It's a lose/lose situation.


I 100% agree. But our leadership has decided otherwise because the United States has absolutely no concept whatsoever of the Middle East and just how fucked it up it is. Everyone is still operating on Cold War logic.

There's also a lot of classic machismo at play. Obama said something, was unable to back down from it, Kerry gave him an opening, but Russia capitalized on it so for the US to save face they need to play it out to the very end. If Putin comes out looking better than the United States this will supposedly jeopardize America's clout, something the UK recently discovered when its parliament imploded over Syria. It's really fucking silly but international relations really is college-level drama.
Image

Return to Politics/Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest