Syria is an absolute disaster *Update 5/17*

[2timer]

*Update* Russia is selling the Assad regime advanced missiles: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/1...ia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html

And I'm going to blame China and Russia for the incessant bloodshed. Two times a resolution in the Security Council

was brought forward, and two times these no-good communists vetoed the resolution. The blood is on THEIR HANDS!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/16/opinion/husain-syria-turkey/?c=&page=1

 

[EagleKeeper]

Until they have something to benefit their vote; why should they appease the US?

Russia is allied with Syria - Most powerful countries do not walk away for their proxies.

 

[Genx87]

Dont worry 2Timer, Obama will send them the guns you want banned for american citizens.

 

[Screech]

sounds like a win-win for america, tbh.

 

[nextJin]

How is any of this our problem?

 

[palehorse]

How is any of this our problem?

As much as I wish it wasn't so, a lack of stability in the ME is definitely a threat to US (read: global) safety and stability. An all-out war throughout that entire region would probably bring the entire global economy to its knees. At minimum, our energy costs would skyrocket, and our allies in the region would be in grave danger.

Unfortunately, since the advent of the truly global market (and WMD's), there is simply no way on earth to limit our security concerns to within our own borders... again, as much as I wish that wasn't so.

 

[Genx87]

As much as I wish it wasn't so, a lack of stability in the ME is definitely a threat to US (read: global) safety and stability. An all-out war throughout that entire region would probably bring the entire global economy to its knees. At minimum, our energy costs would skyrocket, and our allies in the region would be in grave danger.

Unfortunately, since the advent of the truly global market (and WMD's), there is simply no way on earth to limit our security concerns to within our own borders... again, as much as I wish that wasn't so.

Who is going to all out war? Syria is too busy fighting itself to fight anybody else. Iraq can barely stand on its own. Lebanon has been a mess for decades. Turkey? They dont want any of this crap. That leave Israel and the United States. A country that can clearly defend itself and another that is 8000 miles away.

 

[nextJin]

As much as I wish it wasn't so, a lack of stability in the ME is definitely a threat to US (read: global) safety and stability. An all-out war throughout that entire region would probably bring the entire global economy to its knees. At minimum, our energy costs would skyrocket, and our allies in the region would be in grave danger.

Unfortunately, since the advent of the truly global market (and WMD's), there is simply no way on earth to limit our security concerns to within our own borders... again, as much as I wish that wasn't so.

Considering most of their neighbors are containing Syria I fail to see how this would "erupt" in turmoil. That has already came to the ME via US intervention and gas prices are fine.

 

[2timer]

Dont worry 2Timer, Obama will send them the guns you want banned for american citizens.

That's a different subject and not going to address it here, thanks anyway.

Until they have something to benefit their vote; why should they appease the US?

Russia is allied with Syria - Most powerful countries do not walk away for their proxies.

Appeasement? Who said anything about appeasement? This is about the ethics of ending a civil war and the slaughter of thousands of civilians. This has nothing to do with appeasement, there.is a crises going on, and Russia and China are morally and ethically in the absolute wrong.

 

[Genx87]

That's a different subject and not going to address it here, thanks anyway.

The subject is worthy. Why is an American president preaching weapons should be restricted in the hands of Americans. While at the same time being the worlds biggest arms dealer?

 

[2timer]

The subject is worthy. Why is an American president preaching weapons should be restricted in the hands of Americans. While at the same time being the worlds biggest arms dealer?

How is restricting access of civilians to assault style rifles comparable to arming military rebels for fighting a tyrannical regime, considering also that your query is based on pure speculation?

Nice thread derail btw.

 

[Genx87]

How is restricting access of civilians to assault style rifles comparable to arming military rebels for fighting a tyrannical regime, considering also that your query is based on pure speculation?

Nice thread derail btw.

Think about that one for a second. The president and his goons are telling people they dont need these weapons to defend themselves against criminals or the govt. While sending these weapons to people to defend themselves against criminals and their govt derp.

 

[nehalem256]

Appeasement? Who said anything about appeasement? This is about the ethics of ending a civil war and the slaughter of thousands of civilians. This has nothing to do with appeasement, there.is a crises going on, and Russia and China are morally and ethically in the absolute wrong.

That doesn't sound like it is any of our business.

 

[2timer]

Think about that one for a second. The president and his goons are telling people they dont need these weapons to defend themselves against criminals or the govt. While sending these weapons to people to defend themselves against criminals and their govt derp.

You have a lot of maturing to do apparently, thinking that home security and the threat of a tyranny in the United States is comparable to a repressive 3rd world regime that has already slaughtered thousands of innocents.

Grow up?

 

[2timer]

That doesn't sound like it is any of our business.

No? Well unlike you, I believe stronger, mature, industrialized societies have an ethical imperative to stop brutal dictators from killing thousands of people, but hey, that's just me.

 

[dphantom]

No? Well unlike you, I believe stronger, mature, industrialized societies have an ethical imperative to stop brutal dictators from killing thousands of people, but hey, that's just me.

You may want to really think about the implications of what you said. I mean really think.

 

[soulcougher73]

How is any of this our problem?

THIS

 

[soulcougher73]

How is restricting access of civilians to assault style rifles comparable to arming military rebels for fighting a tyrannical regime, considering also that your query is based on pure speculation?

Nice thread derail btw.

LOL oh the irony is delicious.

 

[Genx87]

You have a lot of maturing to do apparently, thinking that home security and the threat of a tyranny in the United States is comparable to a repressive 3rd world regime that has already slaughtered thousands of innocents.

Grow up?

Open your eyes. Disarming the citizens at home while shipping those same guns to people halfway around the world. Seems legit derp.

 

[Genx87]

No? Well unlike you, I believe stronger, mature, industrialized societies have an ethical imperative to stop brutal dictators from killing thousands of people, but hey, that's just me.

Let me guess, by bombing those people and providing them the means to kill each other? What an ethical standard you are setting.

 

[2timer]

You may want to really think about the implications of what you said. I mean really think.

Ok.

*thinks* ... .... ...

I've thought about it, still reach pretty much the same conclusions on the issue.

Just to clarify, my main point isn't that the US should wade in, my point is how utterly the governments of Russia and China have failed. And that's something I firmly believe.

 

[2timer]

Open your eyes. Disarming the citizens at home while shipping those same guns to people halfway around the world. Seems legit derp.

Your logic fails and you didn't even address my point - you rehashed the same argument which I already stated was erroneous. Comparing the two situations indicates a lack of critical thinking on your part.

 

[nextJin]

No? Well unlike you, I believe stronger, mature, industrialized societies have an ethical imperative to stop brutal dictators from killing thousands of people, but hey, that's just me.

Are you willing to raise your hand and go over there to die for them?

 

[dphantom]

No? Well unlike you, I believe stronger, mature, industrialized societies have an ethical imperative to stop brutal dictators from killing thousands of people, but hey, that's just me.

It does in fact mean the USA "wades in" along with other "stronger, mature, industrialized" societies. You are describing an interventionist policy far beyond what the USA has ever done before.

 

[chucky2]

Ok.

*thinks* ... .... ...

I've thought about it, still reach pretty much the same conclusions on the issue.

Just to clarify, my main point isn't that the US should wade in, my point is how utterly the governments of Russia and China have failed. And that's something I firmly believe.

They're not failing. They're getting exactly what they want. Do you honestly think RU or China cares about its own citizens, nevermind some other countries? Especially a ME or Africa country? LOL@U if you think that.

I think it was TheGreenBean, who is Pakistani, once said in a thread here something to the effect that they'd happily trade with the Chinese as they weren't bad evil people like the US. Comments like that are in the running for most insane ever in P&N.

Chuck