|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 16:57:03 GMT -5
Ok, its not fair to say that; it sucks that anyone has to die but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this situation. Better to save 1000 lives than 500 or none at all. If they consistently kill peacekeepers that is reasonable cause for NATO intervention I suppose, which could be a deterrent to killing them. However, if the Syrians are too busy fighting each other they're unlikely to waste resources killing peacekeepers who are looking after people who aren't directly involving themselves in the conflict. I just don't see how we can justify saving one group over another. Because one is being killed by poison rather than being rounded up and executed? And NATO is overwhelmingly US forces. We account for 40% of NATO forces. So either way we'd have to get involved. Because one group is bigger than the other; no other reason. Best to save as many lives as possible. Yes but I don't believe the US would have to in that scenario, as the Syrians wouldn't waste precious resources on killing innocent civilians and peacekeepers.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 17:06:51 GMT -5
I just don't see how we can justify saving one group over another. Because one is being killed by poison rather than being rounded up and executed? And NATO is overwhelmingly US forces. We account for 40% of NATO forces. So either way we'd have to get involved. Because one group is bigger than the other; no other reason. Best to save as many lives as possible. Yes but I don't believe the US would have to in that scenario, as the Syrians wouldn't waste precious resources on killing innocent civilians and peacekeepers. I don't think that's a good reason. "You may be suffering and will be killed soon but sorry, there aren't enough of you to make it worth it." I'm not trying to come off as an bunghole but I just don't get it. Why wouldn't Syria kill them? Maybe they wouldn't do it on purpose but it could happen. Other countries that have infighting have done it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 17:15:07 GMT -5
Because one group is bigger than the other; no other reason. Best to save as many lives as possible. Yes but I don't believe the US would have to in that scenario, as the Syrians wouldn't waste precious resources on killing innocent civilians and peacekeepers. I don't think that's a good reason. "You may be suffering and will be killed soon but sorry, there aren't enough of you to make it worth it." I'm not trying to come off as an bunghole but I just don't get it. Why wouldn't Syria kill them? Maybe they wouldn't do it on purpose but it could happen. Other countries that have infighting have done it. Its not that there aren't enough of them to make it worth it; its that there aren't enough of us. If we have 100,000 peacekeepers, and we can send them to a place where 50,000 can be saved, a place where 10,000 can be saved, or nowhere, which one is the most logical for them to go to? I know you'll likely say split them up, but that is difficult in practice because a group still needs to be large or else it won't be effective defence. Syria might kill a few by accident, but by and large they would avoid them. Its just not worth killing them, and as a result they won't kill the innocent people, meaning the peacekeepers would've done their job.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 17:23:36 GMT -5
I don't think that's a good reason. "You may be suffering and will be killed soon but sorry, there aren't enough of you to make it worth it." I'm not trying to come off as an bunghole but I just don't get it. Why wouldn't Syria kill them? Maybe they wouldn't do it on purpose but it could happen. Other countries that have infighting have done it. Its not that there aren't enough of them to make it worth it; its that there aren't enough of us. If we have 100,000 peacekeepers, and we can send them to a place where 50,000 can be saved, a place where 10,000 can be saved, or nowhere, which one is the most logical for them to go to? I know you'll likely say split them up, but that is difficult in practice because a group still needs to be large or else it won't be effective defence. Syria might kill a few by accident, but by and large they would avoid them. Its just not worth killing them, and as a result they won't kill the innocent people, meaning the peacekeepers would've done their job. I'd actually say stay out of it. We do enough damage already without even stepping foot in some countries, adding the military won't solve anything. We should have learned that from Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't see a country that used chemical weapons on its citizens backing down because of some peacekeepers. There have been reports that the FSA was actually responsible for the chemical attack but of course it hasn't been verified. Though I'm not sure how they verified that the Syrian government used them.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 17:30:26 GMT -5
Its not that there aren't enough of them to make it worth it; its that there aren't enough of us. If we have 100,000 peacekeepers, and we can send them to a place where 50,000 can be saved, a place where 10,000 can be saved, or nowhere, which one is the most logical for them to go to? I know you'll likely say split them up, but that is difficult in practice because a group still needs to be large or else it won't be effective defence. Syria might kill a few by accident, but by and large they would avoid them. Its just not worth killing them, and as a result they won't kill the innocent people, meaning the peacekeepers would've done their job. I'd actually say stay out of it. We do enough damage already without even stepping foot in some countries, adding the military won't solve anything. We should have learned that from Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't see a country that used chemical weapons on its citizens backing down because of some peacekeepers. There have been reports that the FSA was actually responsible for the chemical attack but of course it hasn't been verified. Though I'm not sure how they verified that the Syrian government used them. That's fair, but the peacekeepers are better in my view because they legally can't attack anyone unless they are attacked first (and I am yet to hear of a report of that rule being broken). In that sense they aren't threatening to Syrians in the way conventional military are. Overall I suppose I just think that the Syrians would have too much to worry about to attack the peacekeepers that aren't threatening anyone, rather just protecting people the two sides weren't directly attempting to attack anyway.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 17:32:40 GMT -5
But if peacekeepers being killed is crossing a line then we should have went to war with the Sudan and the Congo where they have been killed the past few months.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 17:35:23 GMT -5
But if peacekeepers being killed is crossing a line then we should have went to war with the Sudan and the Congo where they have been killed the past few months. I don't know the details of the deaths there. If they were accidents or one offs then it sucks but there's not much we can do. If they're repeatedly targeting peacekeepers and killing them then I would say we should do something about it; what that something is would vary on the circumstances obviously.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 17:48:19 GMT -5
But if peacekeepers being killed is crossing a line then we should have went to war with the Sudan and the Congo where they have been killed the past few months. I don't know the details of the deaths there. If they were accidents or one offs then it sucks but there's not much we can do. If they're repeatedly targeting peacekeepers and killing them then I would say we should do something about it; what that something is would vary on the circumstances obviously. Since 2010 nearly 450 UN peacekeepers have been killed. And nearly 50% of all UN peacekeepers killed since the beginning of the UN have been killed since 2000. I don't remember anyone going to war over them being killed. I just don't think we should be getting involved in a civil war. They are no threat to us (though saying someone is a threat isn't justification for war) and the threat would only come after we attack. And if they or someone else did something in return (blow back) then Obama and others would point and say "See? We told you they were a threat."
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 31, 2024 21:40:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 20:21:11 GMT -5
Let's take a step back for a second and suppose the purpose of going into Syria really is to free the oppressed from their oppressors and to prevent genocide. If that is the case, and those are the reasons we are using to justify our intervention in Syria, how can America continue to be an ally to Israel? The worst infringement of human rights in the world is going on in Palestine while we stand idly by. We don't have to wait for Israel to begin their genocide, its been going on for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Aug 30, 2013 23:02:31 GMT -5
An armed military force is an armed military force. It's not going to popular no matter where it is. Doesn't matter if you slap the label of peacekeepers on them. As already stated, UN and/or NATO peacekeepers are overwhelming US forces anyway.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 31, 2013 3:43:34 GMT -5
An armed military force is an armed military force. It's not going to popular no matter where it is. Doesn't matter if you slap the label of peacekeepers on them. As already stated, UN and/or NATO peacekeepers are overwhelming US forces anyway. Fun fact: US ranks 70th in contribution to UN peacekeeping forces at only 82 service members. The country that has the most, at 8,781, is Bangladesh. We do, however, contribute 40% of NATO forces.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Aug 31, 2013 13:32:00 GMT -5
Well Obama just gave a speech saying he's going to seek Congressional approval. Good political move. Let's him shift blame.
Sent from my GT-N8013 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Aug 31, 2013 13:35:24 GMT -5
Let's take a step back for a second and suppose the purpose of going into Syria really is to free the oppressed from their oppressors and to prevent genocide. If that is the case, and those are the reasons we are using to justify our intervention in Syria, how can America continue to be an ally to Israel? The worst infringement of human rights in the world is going on in Palestine while we stand idly by. We don't have to wait for Israel to begin their genocide, its been going on for decades. As long as the Unites States are allies with countries like Saudi Arabia, everything they claim to stand for is total bullsh*t, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 31, 2013 14:04:19 GMT -5
Well Obama just gave a speech saying he's going to seek Congressional approval. Good political move. Let's him shift blame. Sent from my GT-N8013 using proboards I assume the vote is a formality considering Republicans love intervention and the Democrats will mostly back their President?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 31, 2013 14:58:19 GMT -5
Well Obama just gave a speech saying he's going to seek Congressional approval. Good political move. Let's him shift blame. Sent from my GT-N8013 using proboards I assume the vote is a formality considering Republicans love intervention and the Democrats will mostly back their President? It also doesn't matter what the vote is because Obama said he has the authority to act without Congress which I'm taking to mean "Vote it down, I don't care. I'm going to order an attack." And more Democrats voted for the Iraq war than voted against it so they love them some war as well.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Aug 31, 2013 16:27:31 GMT -5
I think it's pure ass covering. If they vote for it (which seems likely especially with Kerry all gung-ho about going) then he's covered. If we go and it goes south then he'll turn around and blame Congress and claim he didn't really want to go in the first place, but Congress demanded it. If we go and it turns out well, then he will claim complete credit and not mention Congress at all.
I'm often shocked at how many Democrats voted for the Iraq war only to turn around later and claim that they never really wanted to go in the first place, they were forced, misled, couldn't read the ballot properly, wasn't explained to them that the vote was actually real, etc.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 31, 2024 21:40:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 16:59:59 GMT -5
I think it's pure ass covering. If they vote for it (which seems likely especially with Kerry all gung-ho about going) then he's covered. If we go and it goes south then he'll turn around and blame Congress and claim he didn't really want to go in the first place, but Congress demanded it. If we go and it turns out well, then he will claim complete credit and not mention Congress at all. I'm often shocked at how many Democrats voted for the Iraq war only to turn around later and claim that they never really wanted to go in the first place, they were forced, misled, couldn't read the ballot properly, wasn't explained to them that the vote was actually real, etc..... Every one was mislead at the beginning of the Iraq war. Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney and Powell delivered cherry picked information along with outright lies to get the vote they were looking for. www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.htmlwww.nationalmemo.com/powells-chief-of-staff-iraq-intel-was-outright-lies-but-powell-didnt-knowingly-lie-at-u-n/What I will say about Powell is at least he had the decency to resign after being confronted with reality.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 31, 2013 19:34:30 GMT -5
I'm often shocked at how many Democrats voted for the Iraq war only to turn around later and claim that they never really wanted to go in the first place, they were forced, misled, couldn't read the ballot properly, wasn't explained to them that the vote was actually real, etc..... Hillary lost the primary because she voted in favor of the war but Obama and his supporters were perfectly happy having Joe Biden on the ticket and he voted the exact same way Hillary did. Having a President that voted for war is bad but having a Vice President who voted for war and is a heartbeat away from the Presidency is ok. Also, having a President that voted for war would have been ok if John Kerry had won but absolutely terrible if Hillary had won.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 1, 2013 12:16:31 GMT -5
I'm often shocked at how many Democrats voted for the Iraq war only to turn around later and claim that they never really wanted to go in the first place, they were forced, misled, couldn't read the ballot properly, wasn't explained to them that the vote was actually real, etc..... It's the fact that even after they claimed such things, they just let it keep going without cutting the funding (when they gained the House and Senate majority in 2006). My guess is that they didn't want to appear "weak" on fighting terrorism.
|
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,265
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Sept 1, 2013 12:32:28 GMT -5
Its not world war III, but it certainly heightens tensions. Im not so sure the Syrian regime were behind that chemical attack, theres many reports around saying it was the rebels/opposition behind it, arent many of the opposition offshoots of al-queda? these extremists wouldnt think twice about launching a chemical weapon. The regime were on the offensive and although things were messy there was certainly no need for them to press the panic button and unleash chemical weapons knowing full well the american concerns and you can bet Putin was in their ear warning them against it. Its interesting, im following it on the news constantly but now that Obama has hesitated and letting the decision go to congress it has to make you wonder does he really think the Syrian regime were indeed behind the chemical attack. When Kerry came out and said there were rockets launched from the regime controlled areas to opposition areas rockets dont necessarily mean chemical weapons does it? I mean why not just come and say "chemical weapons were launched" rather than "rockets" i think people should look into the fine details.
As twisted and horrible as it sounds i certainly dont believe the US are getting involved purely because the 1429 civilians killed, if there that much concerned about death tolls they would be intervening in just about every civil war out there. Its all to do with foreign relations these wars, with Syria and North Korea and Iran all tied into this i think thats what its really about, and i know thats been said all be it in a different phrase when Kerry referred to the international red line thats been crossed by Syria i just feel the US have used the pictures of the dead children to get the public on board more than anything. If the regime did indeed launch those chemical weapons (and again if the US have proof of this why not release it as unclassified evidence rather than classified?)then im all for the US and their allies intervening because that means there is indeed a red line thats been crossed and it shouldnt be tolerated but there is some hesitancy especially with this recent U-turn by Obama which isnt convincing the world.
|
|