So, what the alternative Islamist? and the rebel groups are innocent as well, take a look at this please, and see who we are possibly bringing to power. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=255_1378116979
I understand your disgust for anyone that would eat a dead mans heart, it is disgusting to me as well. Lets try to be objective and not let our personal bias be a part of a decision that affects the world we live in. The fact is the man he killed was an enemy combatant and not a civilian. Lets stay on topic, who am I to judge how these people treat the dead bodies of enemy combatants? I am far more disgusted by people who kill civilians. That's what terrorists do they kill civilians period. WMD such as blister agents, blood agents, choking agents, nerve agents, pathogens, and toxins should not be tolerated because they kill far too many civilians!! I could not care less if people want to fight each other. They need to get the message not to use WMD period!! With all the damn rockets, bombs, 50 Cals, missiles, grenade launchers, tanks, jets and machine guns they have and they still cannot avoid breaking a simple law that says do not friggin use WMD??!!:smt021 To me that is crazy. Anybody that crazy should be removed from power period.
The UN is suppose to be enforcing it. No one is going to respect the UN if the UN isn't enforcing international law.
Not sure if you two are agreeing, or arguing your points. (with each other) Meanwhile, why is Hollyweird's furiously anti-war loudmouths suddenly so (hypocritically) quiet?...
We both agree that the UN should be enforcing International law, but I think archangel thinks we should let the law go unenforced when the UN decides not to act. Anyway I agree with the way Obama is handling the situation by giving diplomacy a chance while still keeping the pressure on Syria. It would be nice not to have to bomb Syria, but they must act quickly and get rid of their WMD. Every bit of it. I think they were testing the US to see how far we would let them go. If Obama would have turned his back on the situation countless people could have died in a subsequent attack.
I haven't followed this story closely. I really cant honestly. I'm seeing a lot of buzzing around the web even amount liberal supporters of Obama that he masterminded it. All part of a larger plan. I hate the conspiracy theories. I hate the out to get you way of thinking. But when you look at the NSA and the control and seizure of the world banks and the way our government is drastically limiting our freedom extended by the constitution, I don't know what conclusion to come to. Don't even get me started on the illuminati. Man, I listened to Tupac too. Rolled my eyes even. As much imbalance of power by governments against their own people as their is now all I can say is things are very whack. And I'm not sure if we've sat to long in complacency and The Stupids to change it. They feed us bullshit and we swallow it. Then we ask for more.
Actually, I believe we should be ending the two wars we are in and getting ready for this economical struggle with china. We shouldn't be concerned about this.but clearly putting americans last is a goal of the politicians.
I do agree that we spend entirely too much money overseas, but I do believe there are other ways to save money other than allowing people to be mass murdered. Also American troops left Iraq in Dec 2011.
Ok, i understand your point of view. At the same time you have not answered the question, What the alternative Islamist? Assad was part of a minority Alawite religious group, which was supported and assisted by the Christian 10% or 15% of population, and Druze 5% minorities. If islamist get into power, there is a strong possibility there will be retribution against those groups. Similar to what happened to blacks in southern Libya, and the western world was quite silent and it was never address till this day, and still goes on. It happened in Egypt, with the rise of the Muslim brotherhood, the situation of Copts, and the rights of women became precarious, however Egyptians came to their senses, and realize they were replaced a secular dictatorship to a religious one, and people realize they made a serious error and wanted the old regime back. Personally, i believe this has more to deal with Israel and Saudi Arabia more than anything else. If they get rid of Assad, this will isolate countries and political organization such as Iran and Hezbollah, this is more about geopolitics than anything humanitarian. American government is pretty much doing Israel and Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf nations dirty work. P.S The Islamist group fighting Assad are in Alignment with radical organizations such as Al Qaeda So, i am wondering what America priorities at? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tian-conv/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS Remember Afghanistan similar situation, and it bit American at the end culminating to events such as September 11, 2001. Lastly let the UN handles this, one of the main purpose for this organization is to handle situations such as this.
On MSNBC there isn't one regular host who supports bombing Syria. Obama's reliable stand-bys aren't supporting military action. Take it for what it is. IMO it's kinda funny to hear Democratic congressmen interviewed by Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes gush about how much they love and support the POTUS, but would vote NO on military authorization to bomb Syria. How do we know Syria has chem weapons?? Probably because we sold him the precursors to make those WMDs, along with Russia and much of the EU. If Russia is agreeing to to seize and control Syria's WMD stockpiles, I'd say that's a big confirmation about Assad's chem weapons. I'm concerned that by not responding, the bad actors in the ME and around the world will get the message it's not a war crime to use WMDs and no one will hold you accountable. Chem weapons aren't nukes, but their collateral damage is greater than any other weapon currently available in modern warfare. If you shell a high density neighborhood of 75K in the middle of the night with 50-100 sarin tipped warheads, your kill rate is approaching 90-95%. There's no place to 'hide' from a gas attack; if you aren't wearing the proper equipment prior to an attack, you're going to die. People need to keep an eye on the long game. Obama's foreign policy has always been centered on containing Iran and their nuclear program. A deposed Assad weakens Iran indirectly, but like others have said the alternative to his regime could be 100x worse. There are too many different factions and sectarian groups fighting for control in Syria to predict who would come into power if Assad fell. Personally I'd rather see a military coup in Syria and simply remove the Assad family from power and not see a full scale civil war among a dozen different political and ideological factions.
yep. what's the point of the u.n. if it has no say? The u.n. leader ban ki Moon said the same thing the other day - that this situation is calling into question the u.n.'s credibility Anyway, america is illegit in this case for so many reasons: - u.s. helped saddam use chem weapons - u.s. started unwarranted war in iraq - u.s. has no u.n. backing for a strike - u.s. no real purpose or plan. If it's not to defeat assad, then why do it? - killing via chem weapons is little different from the brutality of killing civilians with bombs, so what's the point? - assad's powerful allies - including russia is signaling this will result in a wider war, and they're right that america has no legitimacy for this attack - why would assad use chem weapons, when he was winning the war? He has all the conventional weapons he needs and he was winning. Seems like the resistance (or somebody) launched the attack to drag america in Shame on russia and china in this mess too. But it should be up to the u.n. to solve it
Assad and the Russians have all but admitted the Syrians were behind the attack. It was an organized military strike on Damascus with chem tipped missiles, a capability the rebels don't have. Assad was killing tens of thousands of Syrians, but it was a stalemate. He was NOT winning, otherwise the uprising would have been crushed months ago. Assad is desperate every day longer he has armed militants fighting against his forces, that's why he used chem weapons. It would be like 'someone' launching a chem missile attack on L.A. from a nearby military base, and someone arguing it wasn't the U.S. military but instead an armed militia group that somehow had acquired WMDs and the requisite delivery systems. That's conspiracy talk. The location the missiles were fired from was under Syrian military control.:smt119 The U.N. is a peacekeeping organization, not a peacemaking one. Most of their funding comes from the U.S. Their legitimacy comes from the American government, not the other nations of the world. Also notice how North Korea and Iran have responded since the chem attack in Syria and the lack of a global response; the North Koreans have begun repowering a nuclear facility and Iran has taken steps to restart their nuclear weapons program. Why?? Because if the world doesn't give a damn if Assad gasses his own people in violation of the international treaty ban on their use, who the fuck is going to stop Iran or North Korea if they develop nukes??? No one at all. Forget your wider war bullshit if we bomb Syria. Try a nuclear arms race in Asia and the ME because we failed to respond to Assad's violation of international law. If the biggest bully on the block doesn't act like one, every punk in the neighborhood is going to try him to see how tough he isn't anymore. You know there are world leaders and governments who think you can win a nuclear war and have no concept of the devastation caused by a megaton nuke.:smt078 Assad needs to be dealt with IMO on principle. I'm not saying overthrow him, but he should have been slapped down immediately after we had intel he'd gassed his own people.
This is truly the most laughable post in the thread. First of all, are you really saying that we may as well allow Assad to use chemical weapons because conventional bombs can kill civilians too? That's like saying we should allow American citizens to own genades because they already own guns. Both can kill, so whats the difference right? :smt043 Secondly, are you really making this out to be a clear cut good guy vs bad guy issue?:smt081 You are saying that due to the fact that America has not always made the best decisions in the middle east that we are not worthy enough to wear the good guy badge. :smt005 Assad: I could not have used chemical weapons because I don't have them. Assad (Later): I will give you the poison gas if you don't bomb me. :smt030 LOL Obviously this is not about good guy vs bad guy. Its about survival. This is a very dangerous world that we live in and every thing is not clear cut like you are trying to make it.
You make great points and these are the reasons I agree with Obamas decision to postpone any bombing against Assads regime. If it were not for some of the complexities that you have mentioned I would say that the US should start bombing ASAP and not bother talking to Assad. The fact is none of the options we have are close to being ideal, but the message must remain clear that the use of such weapons shall not be tolerated. Anyway Assad should not be given time to pass go or collect 200, he should barely have enough time to shit shower and shave before he hands over the poison gas.
