Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Defiant47]

I'd dispute that, but I don't feel like getting into a semantic argument over sanity as it relates to ethics.

Oh, don't worry, this is "moderate" Defiant. I'm slowly easing you guys into the "invade everything and bring about stability to save lives" Defiant.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Yeah, Obama does seem like he's footing around the issue and deploring the use of chemical weapons without actually wanting to go in unsolicited... but the other politicians seem to be heavy on the gun in the blame-game.

I think this is because of American politics and not International politics, you feel?

In any case, I think if Obama gets his coalition, strikes on Syria are likely. The Russians will likely condemn an intervention but I doubt they will get involved in any way.

The Iranians will be flipping, I doubt they will do anything serious though. They should know that any serious action would result in regime-ending retaliation.

 

[REDY]

It seems more and more that there will be intervention in way that US fleet will kill some Syrians by rockets and simply sail away.

 

[Commodore]

This would necessitate an extensive discussion on what I feel is appropriate for a volunteer army, a conscripted army, and all the blends within. At the moment, I don't have the chance to give you the reply you'd deserve, but I don't want to leave you hanging. Suffice it to say that present day, any such humanitarian intervention should only be performed by a volunteer army.

That is, people should volunteer for the mission, and we shouldn't force anyone to do it if they don't want to. Now ideally, we'd live in a world where we've raised our children to be selfless and would volunteer regardless, which threatens the concept of free will/free choice. But that's why it's a more complex discussion.

It's times like this that I really wish the UN were allowed to independently raise their own army specifically for situations like this. That way everyone who signed up would know that they are signing up to fight and die for humanitarian causes.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

It's times like this that I really wish the UN were allowed to independently raise their own army specifically for situations like this. That way everyone who signed up would know that they are signing up to fight and die for humanitarian causes.

The UN sort of has a way to do that here.

You know how the Russians and the Chinese are though.

 

[Commodore]

The UN sort of has a way to do that here.

You know how the Russians and the Chinese are though.

I'm talking about its own army with its own chain of command and the soldiers it recruits will be UN soldiers; not just US, French, British, etc. soldiers wearing blue helmets.

The best example I can use for what I am talking about would be the Global Defense Initiative from the original Command & Conquer.

 

[Defiant47]

I think this is because of American politics and not International politics, you feel?

Good point. Public approval is very low for intervention here.

It's times like this that I really wish the UN were allowed to independently raise their own army specifically for situations like this. That way everyone who signed up would know that they are signing up to fight and die for humanitarian causes.

Indeed.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I'm talking about its own army with its own chain of command and the soldiers it recruits will be UN soldiers; not just US, French, British, etc. soldiers wearing blue helmets.

The best example I can use for what I am talking about would be the Global Defense Initiative from the original Command & Conquer.

Ah...I think we're a bit far from that. And in a scenario it was possible, humanitarian intervention (militarily), would likely be unnecessary. You feel my slang?

 

[Winner]

So, if BBC is to be trusted, the West is again walking into yet another Middle East fiasco.

*Sigh* will people never learn...

 

[kramerfan86]

"Going in" in this case probably does not involve boots on the ground or any sort of a lasting military presence. Ye olde experts, for what they are worth, seem to be leaning towards a bombing campaign. The rhetoric may be heated but I would be surprised to see Obama act before the weapons inspectors deliver their report.

Which considering how ethnically and religiously charged this war is now if we successfully dismantle the government the war will likely continue as some horrific ethnic cleansing affair with no central power. What exactly do people think rebels are going to do to the Alawite section of the country if Assad falls and isnt defending it anymore?

IMO a bombing campaign along the lines of Libya will unleash a new flavor of horror on the region.

 

[Antilogic]

I hate it when "I told you so"s are appropriate.

EDIT: Crossposted, I was responding to Winner. I agree kramerfan, this isn't a clear-cut good and evil kind of situation and I don't really see a positive outcome irrelevant of what the US does.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Exactly. This might just as well have been any one of the myriad of rebel groups operating in Syria.

I say we STAY THE HELL OUT of the mess.



Why? What's our interest there? Even if we depose Assad, what then? Saudi-funded Arab Sunni regime which will promptly implement genocidal revenge against the Alewites and Shias in general, Christians, Druze, Kurds and others? Or a failed, sectarian state akin to Somalia, ruled by local militias? No thanks. But if we're in the business of advice-giving here, I'd suggest the US turn Saudi Arabia into a glass desert. You'd be surprised how many other problems in the Middle East would go away if there were no Saudi money stirring up trouble.

Winner is entirely correct.

We should have invaded Saudi Arabia years after 9/11, not Iraq.


Did you know that the Saudis control the Chechen terrorists who could threaten the 2014 olympics?
http://assafir.com/MulhakArticle.as...kArticleId=1836474&MulhakId=6439#.Uh0HTJ0o4b3

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values ​​and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

Glad a foreigner decided that for us back in July

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

So, if BBC is to be trusted, the West is again walking into yet another Middle East fiasco.

*Sigh* will people never learn...

I would put it as "dragged kicking and screaming", but I feel you dawg.

 

[kramerfan86]

What is so annoying is the governments dont even pretend to care about their citizens anymore, this crap doesnt have large support in any western country but they are going ahead and doing it anyways.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

What is so annoying is the governments dont even pretend to care about their citizens anymore, this crap doesnt have large support in any western country but they are going ahead and doing it anyways.

Because most governments are about the big picture. The US cannot lose face in the International Community.

Call me a nationalist, but go American power...?

 

[REDY]

What is so annoying is the governments dont even pretend to care about their citizens anymore, this crap doesnt have large support in any western country but they are going ahead and doing it anyways.

Exactly. This makes me sick. It also seems that in some countries is much harder to push through law about parking than launch attack on country.

 

[kramerfan86]

Because most governments are about the big picture. The US cannot lose face in the International Community.

Call me a nationalist, but go American power...?

If the fear was losing face the president shouldnt have started drawing red lines that threatened prestige if they were crossed. If he wanted to avoid getting involved, which seemed to be his goal all along. he should have never set up a scenario that could back him into a corner. He is a fool, as big of a fool as W only less folksy.

Even big picture wise it is foolish to further destabilize a country next to multiple allies or to alter the track of a civil war with no real plan to stabilize the country after doing so. Doing something simply because you feel like you need to do something isnt big picture at all, rather short sighted really.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Bombing Syria will send a message to Iran we aren't playing <snip> games.

Moderator Action: Please remember to express yourself without resorting to inappropriate language!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Antilogic]

Gotta say, the Bushie did a lot more buttering up before announcing an invasion.

 

[kramerfan86]

So does North Korea show we do play games so long as your country is large enough to actually force us into an actual war as opposed to a 7 day bombing campaign?