This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Current Events

1293032343539

Comments

  • You're right sK0pe, we should just re-join the commonwealth.
  • There was a time when our "war on" included a war on poverty.
    Is this where they threw money at the "problem"? By "problem" I mean the poor of all ages, colors, and creeds.

    No that course of events may have fixed something.
  • We're moving on Syria for image purposes and because not enforcing the global norm against chemical weapons is actually pretty bad. Syria has little to do with our actual objective, and honestly it's probably in the US' best interest if it strikes, doesn't do too much, and then continues to let other nations dump resources into the proverbial meat grinder.

    We don't move against Iran or North Korea because:
    1) We don't actually have any case for action against them, which will cause us serious problems in the international community and might start a major war against multiple countries,
    and 2) They actually have some counterstrike capability, so it would cost us a lot more to take action.
  • Human Rights Watch has released a report indicating that Government forces are likely responsible for the attack. They point directly towards the 330mm Falaq Type-2 launch capable munitions as well as Soviet produced M-14 rockets with Sarin payloads.
  • Russia refuses to support the French resolution or any other resolution that actually has consequences for not complying with disarmament. Seems like a stalling tactic to me. Either way, I think US/Obama comes out ahead with this plan.
  • Better than dropping bombs at least.
  • edited September 2013
    Better than dropping bombs at least.
    Not necessarily. External intervention from a foreign power could hasten the resolution of the conflict to a quick end rather than drag out an even longer brutal civil war and refugee crisis. Just look at the intervention in Bosnia by NATO in 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999. The problem is that there are so many different parties involved in Syria that it's very hard to come up with a strong plan of action that satisfies conditions for a reasonably stable outcome.

    Post edited by Andrew on
  • RymRym
    edited September 2013
    If we want a truly stable outcome with the minimum loss of life.

    1. Multinational peacekeeping occupation
    2. Any use of force is met with overwhelming response force
    3. Significant investment in local infrastructure and security
    4. All of the above maintained for multiple generations


    This will never happen. I don't believe there will be long-term peace in Syria until war and genocide remove all but one of the factions...
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Maybe enough refugees can flee to the Kurdish sector to lobby for an independent Kurdish state there.

    Of course, Turkey would be SUPER PISSED about that, as would part of Iraq...
  • A Yugoslovia style breakup of Syria along ethnic divisions would definitely be interesting, especially if it involved the creation of Kurdish state. In fact, that's probably one of the only ways this ends without some sort of ethnic cleansing I think.
  • I am pro Kurdish state.
  • Its a shame no one else is. If it does reach a stage of factions then odds are the Kurds will be up at the top.
  • Russia's plan is cool and all. Oh, and also impossible to actually carry out.
  • Shall we meet at yours with the "End is Nigh" signs or shall we meet at the plaza with the flagellants? :P


  • I am expressing displeasure at the continuation of the "US Mission." We've had Iraqi Freedom ongoing from 2003 to 2011, and haven't moved on to a more militarily important target, like Iran, since, and now we're discussing military action against a podunk little regime in a podunk little nation just because they used chemical weapons against rebels backed by the terrorist cell that enacted the 9/11 attack. And we cannot seem to get any support for the operation except from France and the aforementioned terrorists.

    Please feel free to correct me if any of that is wrong, but from my perspective it seems like we're jumping into a Vietnam situation right after having gotten OUT of a Vietnam situation.
    The CWs are the justification, not the reason, which is an important distinction IMO
  • The CWs are the justification, not the reason, which is an important distinction IMO
    Actually, I'm pretty sure the chemical weapons are the reason as well as the justification here. Enforcing the norm against chemical weapons use is seriously the only goal that US intervention could possibly accomplish.

    It would not become a Vietnam because there is no reason why the US would want to put boots on the ground. It is literally just "we're going to throw a whole bunch of missiles at Syria so that nobody else uses chemical weapons."
  • What'a Russia's motivation?
  • The Syrian government pays Russia lots of money for weapons and is one of Russia's few remaining international allies. Also it's an opportunity for Russia to give a nice big "fuck you" to the US.
  • The CWs are the justification, not the reason, which is an important distinction IMO
    Actually, I'm pretty sure the chemical weapons are the reason as well as the justification here. Enforcing the norm against chemical weapons use is seriously the only goal that US intervention could possibly accomplish.

    It would not become a Vietnam because there is no reason why the US would want to put boots on the ground. It is literally just "we're going to throw a whole bunch of missiles at Syria so that nobody else uses chemical weapons."
    No, this whole War On Terror is Vietnam all over again is my point.
  • I have an idea, let's take all Syria's chemical weapons and then bomb them to hell anyway. Who are we beholden to?
  • I... I don't have words...
  • Tired of us being the good guys.
  • That sounds like the basis for a good manga.
  • Tired of us being the good guys.
    I approve the sarcasm in this sentence.
  • Didn't the US use shit loads of chemical weapons in Vietnam? Is that what you mean by this being the new Vietnam?
  • Didn't the US use shit loads of chemical weapons in Vietnam? Is that what you mean by this being the new Vietnam?
    Agent Orange yes, which was meant for deforestation, though it did have effects on humans. I'm talking more about an unpopular war that is getting dragged out because of political reasons.
  • Hmmm.

    "Agent Orange or Herbicide Orange (HO) is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.[1][2] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[3] The United States government has dismissed these figures as unreliable and unrealistically high.[4][5]"
  • You can blame Monsanto for not researching or caring enough about Dioxin contamination to let it be known publicly.
  • I blame Monsanto for the US intentionally trying to poison as much of Vietnam as possible?

    Even more "hmmmm..."
Sign In or Register to comment.