A New War You Can't Blame On Bush! Or Can You?

Must be nice to think of yourself in terms of something as archaic as a social-caste system. Where are we, British Imperial India? When are we, 1873?

Also, shut up, Mrs. Bennet!

EDIT: Not directed at you, KN. Just overlooked something.

Those radical Muslims will definitely be put in their place by a volley of radioactive square watermelons...

In all seriousness, if military action goes to Syria, it WILL worsen the situation for EVERYONE, including the civilians we're trying to protect.

Diplomacy is the only way to deal with this situation without making it worse. And everyone knows even if there is UN consensus, the majority cost of the war in manpower, machinery, and money will fall on the US.

Why can't we just keep our goddamn noses out of something for once?

Which is why I don't think going to war will do anything.


Diplomacy doesn't work against radicals though. The rebels will not listen to Assad, and Assad will not listen to the rebels.

Assad already pee'd on Obama's face by using chemical weapons. Assad also knows that he has the backing of Russia should anything happen.

Putin also pee'd on Obama's face by allowing Snowden to stay in Russia, so he (and the world) knows that Obama is a blowhard who talks big but doesn't back anything up.

So it is very hard for diplomacy to work if two sides don't listen, a third party mediator is so weak that nobody will take him seriously, and half the world will choose sides should a war break out (meaning that the bomb to blow up the world is primed and ready, just need the spark to light it).

Because of our stupid superiority thinking that we are the world's police.

Should WWIII happen, this is what will befall the US at the end:

USA wins: Our ego's become so bloated that we would end up taking over the world just to ensure world peace. WWIII would provide a chance to do so.

USA loses: We come back down to earth, and are ripe for more attacks from foreign and domestic enemies.

Either way, we lose.

This dickwaving is what leads to war in the first place. This is mainly to give the middle finger to Assad and more importantly Iran.

The idea that we're doing this because people are dying in Syria is a joke. People have been dying for the last two years and we've comfortably come to the conclusion that those people are expendable and the civil war their problem. Suddenly gas is deployed and you're hearing about women and children. Right.

Assad has resorted to using chemical weapons and that means America has to step up and say "no sir" on behalf of the West. Of course, this is "no sir" because Assad isn't serving Western interests but that's a smug story for another day.

Obama has no reason to think the world doesn't respect the US because we're still the reigning superpower and Putin and Jinping know that. We're simply burnt out of war for the time being and with good reason. The idea we have to flex our penis to remind the world we're still around is complete nonsense.

Diplomacy isn't going to work when Assad has already crossed the line of no return. We'll either negotiate with the FSA once they "win" or reevaluate what we want to do after the war is over. Assad still may be the best choice between a disorganized govt that cannot keep the country stabilized, Islamists or a situation where Syria becomes three countries - Assad's Syria, some Islamic state and a Kurdish nation.

I didn't know that it was confirmed that Assad was responsible, but either way, the perceived insult to Obama is hardly the issue. If you want to be upset about anything, be upset at a massacre.


First, what's with all the golden showers...

Also, you can't really say that Putin did anything as an affront to the US. Amnesty is a very old and established tradition. Protecting political refugees from persecution is something that MOST of the civilized world has done regardless of the political pressures for centuries.

The most you can say about RUSSIA (because Putin isn't a country, even if he is a fascist and questionably elected KGB thug) granting asylum to Snowden is that they didn't consider the US's feelings. That's hardly a slap in the face, especially when their asylum procedures have NOTHING to do with what we want, it's strictly an internal process.

In any case, the US can learn it's lesson by simply having our bluff called. There is legitimately no need to pull the playground "I double dare you!" BS on this. We gave them an ultimatum, they gave us the finger, there's no real shame in taking our defeat and letting the UN do it's friggin' job.

I have to go and the water is shutdown in the building, for at least another 30 minutes. I also don't want to go to a convenient store that is a 15 minute walk there.


I was just referring to the lack of respect given to Obama on the most recent international issues.

Besides. UN can't do anything because it has absolutely no power to do anything.

All it is is a feel good international body of governance that, when a real issue comes to play, pretends to have some weight and power.

UN is just a glorified negotiator. Nothing more, nothing less.

there are three countries in africa at any given time in the last 30 years were massacres are commonplace.

what is the difference here?

BILDERBERG GROUP

Dude, the UN security council is designed to be a check on countries like the US doing whatever the fk it wants, when it wants. Russia has a legitimate vested interest in Syria (warm water ports, resources, buffer nation) and is cozy with a regime that serves its interests. Better the dictator you know than an Islamist nest emboldening your already contested regions.

Dagestan
Chechnya

We may not like it but we're not the Russian gov't are we. China usually stays out of these things and has nothing to gain from this adventure.

To say the UN has no influence is nonsense and feet stomping that they don't rubber stamp everything the US wants. It's a bureaucratic machine no doubt but it isn't supposed to the arm of the US.

Because we were told to be upset?

The difference is that Syria plays into the US long game against Iran and the overall geopolitics of the region at large which is to prevent every Arab nation from going to war with Israel. Said war would drag the US in by default and cause a crisis on the world markets.

Destabilizing the region would be a brisk way of putting it.

Israel has nukes and we damn well don't want anyone ever using nuclear weapons on this planet again. Israel is on the record saying they would if anything ever threatened their nation mortally. They may have the best army in the region by far but do we really want to take that chance?

I mean sure... politicians can be be looked at as *** that don't always seem to be working for their constituents but you guys honestly think that they run the country on ego and "dickwaving"? You'd be wrong... There are always reasons we're active in other parts of the world and you can be sure that it is mainly for our own interests... Take Egypt for example... we keep them funded and armed to keep the suez canal open and running smoothly... There is always a reason... the one thing I think we are as a nation altogether though is shortsighted... it doesn't seem that many people can see past their own hand when they put it out in front of their face...

I don't care what the UN does, it has no effect on me because it cannot enforce (i.e. punish me) any of it's decrees it sees fit.

Plus, if it isn't supposed to be an arm of the US, then why are we pretty much funding everything for the UN, including most of it's "peacekeepers" and "enforcement supplies" (i.e. people and arms). It should be fully supported (i.e. funded, supplied) equally by all member nations, not predominantly by the US...

Again, we are not the police of the world. If we are supposed to be, then why can't I enforce my police privileges (i.e. police abuse) on Canada???

Personally, I say screw it, lets take over the world.

I mean, WWIII is coming....might as well take full advantage of a global community...

Dickwaving isn't everything but it can make the difference between speaking with a rival nation or choosing to ignore them based on "we're better than you" mentalities. You need not look farther than places like FOX that bash the president for at least trying to compromise with our "enemies".

Protecting interests is one thing but a mentality regarding another nation can be make/break in what starts a war.

Welcome to 21st century geopolitics and the aftermath of WWII still resonating to this day. The UN is propped up specifically to prevent a breakdown in peaceful negotiations that results in wars. Unlike previous centuries where wars could be contained to continents we saw what could be done in the 1940s and we've come a long way since.

The US funds the UN because we're the global superpower and de facto global hegemony. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, burden of leadership etc etc.

We are the police of the world as of 2:59EST as much as it may pain us and the people want the US to take a lesser role in global affairs. Our global empire requires peaceful trade and cooperation between nations. This manifests itself in positive ways like trade agreements and negative ones like undermining a sovereign nation to prop up a government closer aligned with our values.

America isn't about self reliance. Capitalism isn't about self-reliance. Globalization is the merger of capitalism and a desire to bring the world closer together to prevent WWII from ever happening again. When you're economy is linked to a rival nation you are that much less inclined to pull the trigger on a war that will simultaneously decimate your economy.

Don't get me wrong, I like watching ***get blowed up as much as the next guy... It makes for excellent television.

But something doesn't smell right to me on this one. And no it isn't my upper lip... I double checked.

I just don't get the rationale for using chemical weapons. Read another way, President Obama's dire "red line" speech could also be read as, You can do whatever the hell you want and kill as many innocent civilians as you care too, just as long as you don't use chemical weapons we aint gunna do ***.

Asad seems to be gaining ground over the last year, russia is delivering all the fresh ammo they can expend, all we have done is wag our finger occasionally, why use "wmds" now? It makes no sense.

But then Asad's whole "FU you haven't won a war since vietnam" speech makes me think they aren't playing with a full deck... Perhaps we haven't won a decisive war lately but every "strong man" we fought in the region is dead as a door nail. Does he really want to be dug out of a spider hole and chopped to pieces with a machete?

And the whole wmd debate sounds awfully familiar...

I think this show is a rerun... /flips the channel

Which is why I say screw it and take over the world.

Everyone wants us to police the other guy? Then they will have to accept us policing them too.

Now where is my baton so I can execute my policing rights (abuse) on Canada?

NONE, that's the point. Sooner or later we're going to have to learn to play ball instead of playing the outrage card selectively when someone doesn't live up to our moral standard.

Sparth hit the nail on the head. When your global interests conflict with your personal values, sometimes you have to just play the diplomacy game.


[+]

Finally, someone with two halves of a brain replying.

Like I said in my previous reply: The US was already involved in Syria long before this even without any troops in that country.

If we didn't want to get involved at all, we should have not have involved ourselves in international conflicts starting with World War II.

And, without the US, a lot of countries would not exist today. We are who we are as a country because of both our economic, political and military power since World War II. The world would be a different place without the United States.

The moment we stop policing the world and stop countries with regimes like Saddam Huissein and Assad, is the moment we let anarchy and chaos take over this planet. If no other country is willing to step in to stop them or ally themselves under a single banner like the UN, then we have surrendered ourselves to the terrorists, the dictators, the warlords and the evil regimes of this world.

We are involved in every international conflict regardless where and when it takes place today and tomorrow, no matter if we have no soldiers there or not. Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes, so let's get that out of the way. However, stopping someone like Saddam and leaders like him were necessary evils and risks we have to take if we do not want another World War on the level of World War II to happen again.

It is inevitable and unavoidable.

Never have I seen a post contradict itself such as this!

First, you said that we needed to invade Iraq to get rid of an evil dictator.

Then you said that Iraq was a mistake.

Then you added that Iraq was a justified war....

Seriously??? Make up your mind please! You can't go two completely opposite directions here!

I was kinda thinking the same thing lol... it was a lot of back and forth there almost like it was a mistake but we need to make mistakes to do the right thing...

I too have asked myself why Assad decided to all of a sudden use WMDs when he has most of the populous cities under his control while the FSA and other rebel groups control the outskirts and rural areas. As long as he kept this war out of the WMD arena, he was in the clear to conventionally murder as many people as possible unchecked with Russia cheering all the way.

Perhaps he's desperate or becoming unhinged like every dictator who starts pondering over the loss of power or the paranoia that sinks in when people are actively trying to murder you on a daily basis has taken full control.

Or perhaps he didn't use them at all. Seems like a good tactic to me if you are on the losing "rebel" side to use the chemical weapons yourself to provoke international assistance. They have no issue with being martyrs.

My previous post was just the fact of life for 21st century Western, American mindsets and not my opinion on the matter. It's meant to lay on the table what people seem to ignore when voicing their opinions on "Why 'Murica? Why us??" every time our leaders talk about war... er I mean intervention.

This layman idea that we can just go full isolationist state again seems to ignore the entire consequence of World War II, Europe, Capitalism and global power that has catapulted America from a ho-hum middle tier country that spawned in a strategic place to a top tier "We will bury you" superpower.

Why false flag it then? Even if the FSA is decimated and Assad wipes out the Islamists is that not doing the Wests job for them?

The country would return to status quo albeit with a decimated population, Russia would immediately try to patch up the banged up government, Iran would gloat having their ally secure and Israel knows they can handle Assad's government already.

I'm not seeing a reason for a CIA conspiracy here other than regime change which a couple of cruise missiles from the Mediterranean isn't very good at doing. Now if we were putting boots on the ground...

It's not a CIA conspiracy. The Islamists use chemical weapons on innocent people. Assad gets blamed. International intervention helps weaken Assad enough so he is toppled. The Islamists get Syria. Seems like a very rational strategy to me if you are losing the war.

That was the popular theory by the intelligence community about a week ago, I haven't seen anything more concrete since the UN inspectors went it. But if you think about it, if he DID gas his own people, he did it to quell a rebellion he was already winning against, then let international inspectors come in and do tests and send samples to laboratories overseas.

Either it wasn't him or he's exceedingly stupid. Could be both...

it's not something you can go buy at walmart...

around here yet anyways

Virtually all rebel groups that have any success have some kind of backing. Who knows what regime or black market ring has an interest in seeing Assad removed.

Just because your average malcontent can't get Sarin at a 7Eleven doesn't mean a radical militia has the same issue.