Syria Uproar?

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]

You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.

The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.

And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.

Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.

However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.

Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]

This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.

We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]

The European Perspective (adapted from John Cleese):

â??The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from â??Miffedâ?? to â??Peeved.â?? Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to â??Irritatedâ?? or even â??A Bit Cross.â?? The English have not been â??A Bit Crossâ?? since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from â??Tiresomeâ?? to â??A Bloody Nuisance.â?? The last time the British issued a â??Bloody Nuisanceâ?? warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from â??Pissed Offâ?? to â??Letâ??s get the Bastards.â?? They donâ??t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from â??Runâ?? to â??Hide.â?? The only two higher levels in France are â??Collaborateâ?? and â??Surrender.â?? The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France â??s white flag factory, effectively paralysing the countryâ??s military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from â??Shout Loudly and Excitedlyâ?? to â??Elaborate Military Posturing.â?? Two more levels remain: â??Ineffective Combat Operationsâ?? and â??Change Sides.â??
The Germans have increased their alert state from â??Disdainful Arroganceâ?? to â??Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.â?? They also have two higher levels: â??Invade a Neighbourâ?? and â??Lose.â??
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from â??No worriesâ?? to â??Sheâ??ll be alright, Mate.â?? Two more escalation levels remain: â??Crikey! I think weâ??ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!â?? and â??The barbie is cancelled.â?? So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level."

[DBCooper]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Where are the anti-war Hollywood Lefties ?[/quote]

Probably drinking the same Kool-Aid all the conservatives against intervention were drinking when they were keeping their mouths shut about going to war in Iraq.

[Quasi_Tech]

Clearly this isn’t true, but I thought it was rather funny. Especially the skinny man part. Enjoy.

G20 Ends Abruptly as Obama Calls Putin a Jackass

ST. PETERSBURG (The Borowitz Report)?Hopes for a positive G20 summit crumbled today as President Obama blurted to Russia?s Vladimir Putin at a joint press appearance, ?Everyone here thinks you?re a jackass.?

The press corps appeared stunned by the uncharacteristic outburst from Mr. Obama, who then unleashed a ten-minute tirade at the stone-faced Russian President.

?Look, I?m not just talking about Snowden and Syria,? Mr. Obama said. ?What about Pussy Riot? What about your anti-gay laws? Total jackass moves, my friend.?

As Mr. Putin narrowed his eyes in frosty silence, Mr. Obama seemed to warm to his topic.

?If you think I?m the only one who feels this way, you?re kidding yourself,? Mr. Obama said, jabbing his finger in the direction of the Russian President?s face. ?Ask Angela Merkel. Ask David Cameron. Ask the Turkish guy. Every last one of them thinks you?re a dick.?

Shortly after Mr. Obama?s volcanic performance, Mr. Putin released a terse official statement, reading, ?I should be afraid of this skinny man? I wrestle bears.?

After one day of meetings, the G20 nations voted unanimously on a resolution that said maybe everyone should just go home.

[Quasi_Tech]

Here’s a good one. The pope asks Putin to convince Obama not to go to war with Syria.

Pope writes to Putin urging him to tell G20 to oppose Syria strike

The Pope has written to the Russian President urging him to tell President Obama and other world leaders at the G20 summit to oppose a strike in Syria.

The letter was the latest in a series of moves by Pope Francis to prevent involvement in Syria’s bloody civil war.

He has sent tweets condemning a potential war and declared today a day of fasting and prayer for peace in the war-torn country, according to Time.

Pray for peace: Pope Francis takes part in a vigil after writing to G20 leaders as he calls for a peaceful resolution in Syria

In his letter to Putin and other G20 leaders he wrote: ‘I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution.’

‘Let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community.’

The Pope’s push for a peaceful resolution was echoed by the Catholic Church in the U.S. as Cardinal Dolan and American bishops wrote to Congressmen calling on them to vote against military intervention.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also wrote to President Obama, saying the Pope had ‘made it clear that a military attack will be counterproductive, will exacerbate an already deadly situation, and will have unintended negative consequences’.

Defense: The Pope has used Twitter to call for world leaders to find an alternative to war

The Pope has also taken to Twitter to push for a peaceful resolution after the Syrian regime was blamed for a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people.

He started the week with a tweet on Monday that read: ‘War never again! Never again war!’, followed by: ‘How much suffering, how much devastation, how much pain has the use of arms carried in its wake.’

More…
?I’ll help Syria if the U.S. attacks, says Putin in chilling threat to Obama as G20 summit breaks up in acrimony
?Is Syria conflict the latest sign of Armageddon? Novelist with the ear of Rick Santorum and Rick Perry predicts disaster

On Tuesday, he tweeted: ‘We want in our society, torn apart by divisions and conflict, that peace break out!’.

This was followed by: ‘With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons.’

On Thursday, the 76-year-old’s message was: ‘With all my strength, I ask each party in the conflict not to close themselves in solely on their own interests. #prayforpeace.’

He has also set aside Saturday, the birth of Mary, as a day of fasting and pray for peace in Syria. A vigil will be held in St Peter’s Square from 7pm to midnight.

Concern for the Christian minority in Syria also led to a meeting between the Vatican’s foreign minister and world ambassadors, to discuss the dangers of extremists opposing Assad’s regime, according to the Catholic Sun.

The Vatican adheres to just war theory, which means military action must meet a strict set of criteria, including damage by the aggressor being lasting and ‘the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated’.

The Pope’s view on Syria follows his predecessors’ reactions to conflict. Pope Benedict opposed intervention in Libya, Pope John Paul spoke out against the Iraq war and, during the Panama invasion, Manuel Noriega took refuge in the Vatican embassy.

The forum I got this link from had some interesting comments/observations. 1) Why would the Pope try to get Putin (and Atheist) to convince Obama (a Muslim) to not attack Syira? 2) Why wouldn’t the Pope contact Obama himself (maybe he tried and Obama ignored)? 3) When was the last time a Pope had to ask a Russian dictator to convince a US President not to do something stupid?

Good times! Oh, and the Pope Tweeting, incredible.

[Varqanir]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]

You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.

The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.

And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.

Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.

However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.

Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]

This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.

We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]

Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?

You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).

Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.

But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.

When was the last time we won a military engagement of any consequence? Grenada? Panama? Doughty foes indeed.

[Varqanir]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]

You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.

The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.

And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.

Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.

However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.

Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]

This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.

We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]

Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?

You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).

Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.

But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.

When was the last time we won a military engagement of any consequence? Grenada? Panama? Doughty foes indeed. [/quote]

You don’t have to be so literal, you know.

Following their example in trying to control large parts of the world.

And I’m sure the people of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, India, Egypt and Kenya are all very, very grateful for the “British experience” as you so genteelly put it.

How lucky they were to be colonized by such compasionate and loving people![/quote]

Compared to the Belgians or the Dutch… Yes, actually.

[Varqanir]

You consider Iraq and Afghanistan to be “wins”?

Alrighty then.

[Varqanir]

Fine. I believe the expression for that is “Pyrrhic victory”, or, in a lighter vernacular, “winning the battles but losing the war”.

[b89]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]

You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.

The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.

And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.

Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.

However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.

Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]

This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.

We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]

Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?

You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).

Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.

But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.

When was the last time we won a military engagement of any consequence? Grenada? Panama? Doughty foes indeed. [/quote]

Those nations were part of the British Empire and the Falklands war was a conventional war. How has Britain fared in unconventional wars? They haven’t done very well. It’d be like comparing Desert Storm to The Troubles. Occupying all of those nations that were part of the British Empire would have been catastrophic, it’d have drained them of all of their resources.

Do you honestly believe the American military didn’t win any significant battles during OEF or OIF?

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]

You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.

The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.

And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.

Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.

However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.

Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]

This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.

We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]

Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?

You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).

Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.

But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.

[/quote]

You still have much to learn. I’m surprised at this post. It’s Orion-esque to a fault.

When was the last time we won a military engagement of any consequence? Grenada? Panama?

Iraq and Afghanistan. If you don’t think those military engagement wins were of any consequence, then my dear ostrich friend, you might need some folks with a shovel to help extricate your head from the sand.

Whether our “projects” in Iraq and Afghanistan successfully survive, which I doubt they will, does not change the fact that military engagements were won there. C’mon man, you’ve allowed your anti-jingoist pendulum to swing so far that you’re not intellectually operating in the Land of Facts anymore.

[/quote]

Actually, despite the complete unpopularity of the military engagements of the last 50-60 years, they all succeeded to some degree. I think there is a serious disconnect between the populous and understanding what is actually for the betterment of our interests here and abroad. The Vietnam War was carried out with complete ineptness, however it did succeed in keeping half a country free. It also balanced the power in the region, had we not gone in, it would have been a complete Soviet domination of the region.
I hope I don’t have to go into any details on how much that would have destabilized the world.
The second Iraq was an ill advised engagement, but it did succeed where the first one should have. It also checked the power in the region.
As for that whole reduced to rubble bullshit, nobody takes greater care and risks to avoid doing that than the U.S., often to our own tactical detriment. We’ve done more building and infrastructure in Iraq than the Iraqis ever did on their own.

Afghanistan is hopeless because they have no valid source of income. We will never actually leave it. We can’t because the lack of economy there dooms it. Unless the world allows for the opium poppy to be a valid source of income, they have nothing else to grow on. And without growth, without economy, with rife poverty you have a region that will, again and again be used by oppressive tyrants because the people have no means of resistance, and probably don’t care. They’d rather eat under a tyrant, than starve free.

In Bosnia, you had the removal of a genocidal maniac and a country who is now able to get some fledgling feet under them. And a stabilization and treat reduction to Europe… You’re welcome.

Syria is a huge problem. There is not room enough to list the issues that can come from Assad’s power unchecked, or Al qaeda taking root in the country. Hugely destabilizing to an already unstable region, a salivating Iran for it to go wrong in anyway possible.

Let Israel deal with it? That’s fine by me, but don’t bitch about the way they do it because if Israel deals with it, they will be thorough, very thorough, but it will further escalate tensions in the ME.

Let’s put it this way, if you have an extremely liberal, anti-war, anti-military president in office who is calling for military action, you better fucking believe it’s a huge problem, way bigger than he’s leading on because he knows as well as anybody, he is 2 years too late.

[pat]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You consider Iraq and Afghanistan to be “wins”?

Alrighty then. [/quote]

Militarily? Resounding victories.

I’ll give you two failures of American government intervention. Somalia and worse the Congo. It was the lack of intervention that was the problem. A couple of Blackhawks in Somalia does not make for a successful military engagement.
The complete decimation of the Congolese population, over 2 million murdered in less than 5 years is a tragedy I can barely comprehend. Would I have chosen to engage to prevent the tragedy? Fuck yes.

I have no illusions country any nation exists in a vacuum. And like a dense object in space-time, some instances, some areas have a far greater effect on their neighbors and consequently the globe than others.
Some things are more helpless than others, others while tragic in their own right don’t have a big enough global effect for anything to be done, other areas, like Syria are huge problems and will have huge consequences. I really don’t know how to make people understand how that works. I don’t know if there is way for it to be understood than to live it at some level, then you know why you can’t just let some shit go.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]pat wrote:

Afghanistan is hopeless because they have no valid source of income. We will never actually leave it. We can’t because the lack of economy there dooms it. Unless the world allows for the opium poppy to be a valid source of income, they have nothing else to grow on. And without growth, without economy, with rife poverty you have a region that will, again and again be used by oppressive tyrants because the people have no means of resistance, and probably don’t care. They’d rather eat under a tyrant, than starve free.

[/quote]

They have enormous untapped mineral and precious metal deposits.

Read up a little- Mining in Afghanistan - Wikipedia