Why should we intervene and force the issue?
Because it is right?
On who's authority?
Russia and China see it as a civil war that the west has no justification for intervening.
OK, keep trolling your boat? Once again, you've missed the reality of a couple of key points:
2) There is a civil war going on in Syria, a WAR that is largely happening as a result of a dictator who refuses to relinquish his power and is killing civilians. This is the prerequisite for arming members of the Syrian rebels, the FSA.
Why should we intervene and force the issue?
Because it is right?
On who's authority?
Russia and China see it as a civil war that the west has no justification for intervening.
Why should we intervene and force the issue?
Because it is right?
On who's authority?
Russia and China see it as a civil war that the west has no justification for intervening.
Is it right to stop a brutal dictator who commits war crimes, tortures and kills his own people, and oppresses freedom?
Yes, absolutely.
I made a thread a few months ago wondering when we'd put a stop to this thing, but as time goes on I see that many of the rebels are as subhuman scum as Assad. There are more than a few videos now of rebels doing horrendous things.
*GRAPHIC* Here is an execution video: http://www.timesofisrael.com/rebels-post-grisly-execution-video/
And on lifeleak there are daily other videos, there was one recently of a rebel seemingly cutting out a soldier's heart and eating it fresh.
At this point I say let these fucks all murder each other. I realize a lot of civilians are caught up in it, but there is no reason whatsoever to think whoever takes over power there will be any better than Assad.
Is it right to stop a brutal dictator who commits war crimes, tortures and kills his own people, and oppresses freedom?
Yes, absolutely.
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.
Is it right to stop a brutal dictator who commits war crimes, tortures and kills his own people, and oppresses freedom?
Yes, absolutely.
Is it right to stop a brutal dictator who commits war crimes, tortures and kills his own people, and oppresses freedom?
Yes, absolutely.
You must be very young and naive. It is easy to be an armchair general and say "Yeah, we should stop all of these evil brutal dictators!" It is quite another to spill American blood and billions of taxpayer dollars doing it. You can pretend that we'd just launch cruise missiles and bomb a country, but you're still risking American pilots, seamen, and at some point, ground troops would still be necessary. Sorry, but I wouldn't risk a single drop of American blood on North Korea or Syria. Those aren't our fights and I'm not willing to trade American lives for the lives of the citizenry of either of those two nations.
I don't know you, but from some of the other posts in this thread, you're being portrayed as someone pro gun control/elimination. I don't know if that's the case or not and I certainly won't waste time searching your post history to verify; however, if that is true, the irony is delicious. One of the reasons the founding fathers created the second amendment was PRECISELY because they foresaw the need to allow citizens to defend themselves in the case of the government becoming tyrannical. So you'd advocate taking that right away from Americans but giving those weapons to citizens of Syria, North Korea, etc -- that is a very inconsistent thought process.
From a certain perspective if you ignore the "dictator" part you could argue that a large amount of what you said applies to Abraham Lincoln.
I think your brain must be old and a bit cloudy, I'm afraid. If you had bothered to read the article, you'd see that a military intervention would not necessarily require having boots on the ground in Syria. Syria forces are so weak in comparison to ours that realistically, there is little chance of American blood spilled using the following steps suggested in the article : enforce no-fly zones, bomb government airstrips, surround the waters with warships.
Those 3 things pose very little risk at all to our armed forces, so for you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. As to the fourth suggestion, "surround Assad's palace with tanks," I disagree. I don't advocate an intervention where American troops are put directly in harm's way.
As for your thoughts on gun control, they're also a fail. My idea is nothing like you described. I didn't suggest that guns be taken away, I've said assault style rifles should be restricted so heavily that circulation is reduced to almost zero. That doesn't preclude all weapons, so you're statement is null. Were a realistic scenario of tyranny to actually come about, the legislation system is flexible enough to correct any changes in the law.
And since I'm talking about nuances which are clearly above your thought capacity,
you should understand that I've been an advocate of sending arms to Syria rebel forces precisely BECAUSE they are fighting a brutal tyrant. But given your previous lack of critical thinking skill, I wouldn't expect for you to understand that anyway.
Morality belongs to people, not between nations. For that, you have interests which can be fueled by morality but in the end, they are 2 different things.
BTW, don't make the mistake of seeing the rebels as fluffy, kindly and peace-loving Little Ponies.
Why help them and not Assad? Why help Assad and not the rebels? Why help any of them? what would you do?
No kidding? Abraham Lincoln committed war crimes, torture and oppressed freedom, you say.
I guess you learn something new everyday, because that's new to me. Maybe you could elaborate, so we can all learn something.
He certainly suspended right during war time. He certainly oppressed the south's right to self-determination.
Ever hear of Sherman's March to Sea?
You haven't been around here long 2timer, but you've already proven yourself quite the moron. Well done!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-an...he-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syria conflict
Root-cause environmental and energy factors sparking violence will continue to destabilise Arab world without urgent reforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk%E2%80%93Baniyas_pipelineOil and Pipeline Geopolitics: The US-NATO Race for Syria’s Black Gold
Syria's proven oil reserves, amounting to 2.5 billion barrels
Syria’s proven oil reserves, amounting to 2.5 billion barrels, are greater than those of all neighboring countries except Iraq: according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s estimation of its oil reserves. This makes Syria one of the largest producers and exporters of crude oil in the Middle East.
The country also has large reserves of natural gas, hitherto used for domestic consumption, especially for conversion to gas-fired power plants. But there is a problem, the U.S agency reported that since 1964 the license for the exploration and exploitation of mineral deposits has been reserved for Syrian government agencies. Until 201O an annual income of more than $ 4 billion was procured from the export of oil, particularly to Europe. But things are changing with the war.
The ‘”Free Syrian Army” has taken control of important oil fields in Deir Ezzor. Other fields, in the Rumeilan, are controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, who are also hostile to the “rebels” with whom they have repeatedly clashed.
The U.S. / NATO strategy focuses on helping rebels to seize the oil fields with a twofold purpose: to deprive the Syrian state of revenue from exports, already strongly decreased as a result of the EU embargo, and to ensure that the largest deposits pass in the future, through the “rebels” under the control of the big Western oil companies.
Fundamental to this end, is the control of the internal pipelines. This has been sabotaged by the “rebels” in several places, especially near Homs where there is one of two refineries in the country, to stop the supply of petroleum products. But there is something strategically more important at stake: Syria’s role as a hub of alternative energy corridors, through Turkey and other pathways, controlled by the U.S. and the European Union.
The “war of pipelines” has begun: during its invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States destroyed the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline carrying Iraqi oil to Syria. It remained in use, however, between Ain Zalah and Suweidiva.
Subsequently, in defiance of the prohibitions of Washington, Damascus and Baghdad have undertaken the project for two pipelines and a gas pipeline through Syria, connecting Iraqi fields to the Mediterranean and then to international markets.
Even more dangerous for Western interests is the agreement signed in May 2011 between Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran: it involves the construction of a gas pipeline through Iraq, which will transport Iranian natural gas to Syria and from there to foreign markets. These and other already funded projects, have been blocked by what the U.S. agency defines as “the uncertain security situation in Syria»
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_SpringKirkuk–Baniyas pipeline is a crude oil pipeline from the Kirkuk oil field in Iraq to the Syrian port of Baniyas. The pipeline is around 800 kilometres (500 mi) long and the capacity is 300 thousand barrels per day (48×103 m3/d).[1] The pipeline was opened on 23 April 1952. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the pipeline was damaged by U.S. air-strikes and remained out of operation since then.[2]
September 2010 Iraq and Syria agreed to build two new Kirkuk–Baniyas pipelines.[5][6] One pipeline with capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day (240×103 m3/d) would carry heavier crude oil while another pipeline capacity of 1.25 million barrels per day (199×103 m3/d) would carry lighter crude oil.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_warThe Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي ‎, al-rabīˁ al-ˁarabī) is the media term for a revolutionary wave of nonviolent and violent demonstrations, violent and nonviolent protests, riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010.
The Syrian civil war[54] is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and those seeking to oust it. The conflict began on 15 March 2011, with popular demonstrations that grew nationwide by April 2011.
Iran-Syria Gas Pipe to Run Through Iraq
Iraq has approved plans to run a natural gas pipeline through its territory from Iran to Syria.
Iraq has approved plans to run a natural gas pipeline through its territory from Iran to Syria.
The move that may prove to be a game-changer in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s two-year-long savage civil war against opposition fighters. It also extends and strengthens Iran's grip on the region...
I don't pretend that all the rebels are good, but the reality is that at this point, neither side is going to go away on it's own. So which side would you rather support to end the war:
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.