Clarke Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 What credibility? Credibility of his (or her, when Hillary assumes office) word as I indicated With respect to being the cop in the middle east. Not as the ray of hope in darkness if that's what you understood.No US president will want to be seen as a pushover after having such a strong military presence in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 NPR is not a very trustable source It was a BBC program aired in NPR interviewing some US state official and Syrian expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Btw.. Russia is saying they will attack Saudis (US allies) and Iran is saying they will attack Israel IF USA go ahead with millitary action against Syria.. Surely you're joking :nervous: Iran ki aukaad nahi hai and Russia knows better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veer Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The rogue government of the USA used chemical weapons on Vietnamese civilians. Now the rogues are playing cop? PS: this is not a defense of the Syrian regime. Its just that the US has no business interfering on 'humanitarian' grounds, when the US government itself has committed the same chemical offenses on a 100x scale. Chemical weapons on vietnam?? that's the first time I am hearing.. And please dont give me Nuclear bomb on Japan example if you dont know what happened before that. Ok, if US has no business doing it then who would do it? UK already pulled out.. Saudis are sheets of highest order.. always playing chickens.. World need some policing otherwise Iran, Pakistan type countries will do whatever they want.. And US as a country still does more humanitarian work compare to any other countries.. US/Americans are the ones who will start donating/helping countries whenever there is a need (natural disaster). Looks like it is very fashionable to bash USA. China karega kya world policing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The rogue government of the USA used chemical weapons on Vietnamese civilians. Now the rogues are playing cop? PS: this is not a defense of the Syrian regime. Its just that the US has no business interfering on 'humanitarian' grounds, when the US government itself has committed the same chemical offenses on a 100x scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veer Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Surely you're joking :nervous: Iran ki aukaad nahi hai and Russia knows better. Here is the link.. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/27/iranian-lawmaker-says-israel-would-be-first-victim-of-syria-strike/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Chemical weapons on vietnam?? that's the first time I am hearing.. And please dont give me Nuclear bomb on Japan example if you dont know what happened before that. Ok, if US has no business doing it then who would do it? UK already pulled out.. Saudis are sheets of highest order.. always playing chickens.. World need some policing otherwise Iran, Pakistan type countries will do whatever they want.. And US as a country still does more humanitarian work compare to any other countries.. US/Americans are the ones who will start donating/helping countries whenever there is a need (natural disaster). Looks like it is very fashionable to bash USA. China karega kya world policing? The US military sprayed 76000000 litres of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons in the Vietnam war. This isn't good ol' fashioned Uncle Sam bashing for the sake of it. I find it extremely hypocritical that a country which can use chemical weapons without qualms to destroy the lives of millions of peasants and the ecosystem of an entire country, raising a rallying cry for usage of such weapons by other rouge governments today. Doing humanitarian work doesn't absolve the US government of their crimes. The L-e-T or whatever it calls itself these days did loads of humanitarian work in Pakistani controlled Kashmir post the earthquake there. Does that make them any less of a terrorist entity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veer Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 The US military sprayed 76000000 litres of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons in the Vietnam war. This isn't good ol' fashioned Uncle Sam bashing for the sake of it. I find it extremely hypocritical that a country which can use chemical weapons without qualms to destroy the lives of millions of peasants and the ecosystem of an entire country, raising a rallying cry for usage of such weapons by other rouge governments today. Doing humanitarian work doesn't absolve the US government of their crimes. The L-e-T or whatever it calls itself these days did loads of humanitarian work in Pakistani controlled Kashmir post the earthquake there. Does that make them any less of a terrorist entity? Again.. never read anything on Agent Orange so can't comment on that.. But overall Vietnam war was wrong.. and rightly so US soldiers were not welcome when they were coming back from the war.. Also, US opened refugee migration for millions of vietname refugees after that.. Ok, not going to respond to your LeT example.. if you think LeT is same as US then good luck to you. And you are pointing out problems in trying to end the conflict.. but not presenting solution on how to end it... your solution is simply to stay out.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Again.. never read anything on Agent Orange so can't comment on that.. But overall Vietnam war was wrong.. and rightly so US soldiers were not welcome when they were coming back from the war.. Also, US opened refugee migration for millions of vietname refugees after that.. I have provided the link to the wiki entry on agent orange in my previous post. I am sure the Syrian government soldiers are not welcome in Syria either. Heck, they are even shot at. The reception they receive is more hostile than what the US soldiers got post the Vietnam war. Also, most of the Vietnamese refugees to the US were South Vietnamese collaborators or their kin. How many north Vietnamese people, whom the US napalmed/ bombed with agent orange were allowed migration to the US? Ok, not going to respond to your LeT example.. if you think LeT is same as US then good luck to you. And you are pointing out problems in trying to end the conflict.. but not presenting solution on how to end it... your solution is simply to stay out.. My solution is to let the UN security council decide what is to be done. If there is a veto against an attack ( and there is likely to be one, given Russia and China are pro Assad) then the countries of the world should abide with what the UN has decided. In case of such a veto, USA has no business interfering. Interference is impinging upon the sovereignty of the country. That is in direct violation to charter of nations of the UN. Understandable is interference by neighbours, who have to face a refugee crisis or where there is direct conflict as a fallout of the Syrian war. The USA/France/UK bombing Syria because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons is not a solution. Where did he get the weapons from? Russia probably. Is the US going to impose sanctions on Russia for selling chemical weapons to a crazy dictator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veer Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I have provided the link to the wiki entry on agent orange in my previous post. I am sure the Syrian government soldiers are not welcome in Syria either. Heck, they are even shot at. The reception they receive is more hostile than what the US soldiers got post the Vietnam war. Also, most of the Vietnamese refugees to the US were South Vietnamese collaborators or their kin. How many north Vietnamese people, whom the US napalmed/ bombed with agent orange were allowed migration to the US? War was against N. Vietnam (Russian backed communist govt) to free S. Vietnam from oppression.. N. Vietnam didnt even let their people go about migrating to US.. Check history books.. My solution is to let the UN security council decide what is to be done. If there is a veto against an attack ( and there is likely to be one, given Russia and China are pro Assad) then the countries of the world should abide with what the UN has decided. In case of such a veto, USA has no business interfering. Interference is impinging upon the sovereignty of the country. That is in direct violation to charter of nations of the UN. Understandable is interference by neighbours, who have to face a refugee crisis or where there is direct conflict as a fallout of the Syrian war. The USA/France/UK bombing Syria because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons is not a solution. Where did he get the weapons from? Russia probably. Is the US going to impose sanctions on Russia for selling chemical weapons to a crazy dictator? Ok, so if China/Russia vetos UN resolution, USA should stay out and let Syria fight it out.. I wish that happens.. in that case, my tax money won't go to save those ppl.. you people are so naive.... you are like one of those Human Right advocates who dont show up when Asad killing thousands of syrians but would right away show up and raise issues when US goes in and bomb to save other lives.. Saala karo to problem.. na karo to problem. US and Russia are already on wrong foot.. cuz of Snowden showdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swing_n_Speed Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 ^^ I get the arguement about 'why now finally?' But, why not now?? Yes, a lot of people have been killed.. but if US had gone two years back.. some of the same critics would have criticized even then.. If US dont act now, Chemical weapons will be used fairly easily by other rogue govts too.. In a way, I wanna say 'F*** it' and let them fight their own war and kill each other.. but then there is humanitarian angle as well.. Btw.. Russia is saying they will attack Saudis (US allies) and Iran is saying they will attack Israel IF USA go ahead with millitary action against Syria.. Given this scenario, i would say let inspectors come back and give their report.. if clear evidence then GO for it.. What if the rebels used the chemical weapons? Then what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swing_n_Speed Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 My solution is to let the UN security council decide what is to be done. If there is a veto against an attack ( and there is likely to be one, given Russia and China are pro Assad) then the countries of the world should abide with what the UN has decided. In case of such a veto, USA has no business interfering. Interference is impinging upon the sovereignty of the country. That is in direct violation to charter of nations of the UN. Understandable is interference by neighbours, who have to face a refugee crisis or where there is direct conflict as a fallout of the Syrian war. The USA/France/UK bombing Syria because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons is not a solution. Where did he get the weapons from? Russia probably. Is the US going to impose sanctions on Russia for selling chemical weapons to a crazy dictator? The UN is useless. This is already an armed insurgency with terrorists flocking to Syria from Turkey. If the UN has any spine, they would first address that issue. Assad might be crazed, but it takes two to tango, and the USA backed rebels have done their fair share of killing too. Pray tell me who will bring them to book? And somehow in a region crammed with dictators, it's alrit for other despotic regimes to overthrow Assad? in the name of democracy????!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The United States is going to launch military strikes with the sole purpose of liberating the Syrian people. Oh look, is that a pig I see flying outside my window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jersey #10 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 This is t he stupidest "cartoon" I've ever seen. Everything is fine in a war but chemical weapons can have long term effects and is justifiably the red line to my president. Obama is a man of his words :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jersey #10 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 If I were in the intelligence, this is what I would do. I would fire around the chemical sites while not striking the chemical sites. Once the area around the sites are cleared, take the chemical weapons and throw them in the ocean. - That is if the locations are known. -OR- Destroy Syria's air force. This should be a puny job for American defense system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jersey #10 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 CNN is reporting another chemical attack! brainless tards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 CNN is reporting another chemical attack! brainless tards There is something that doesn't add up here. Why would Assad who has been warned and has the eyes of entire world on him commit this heinous act ? I remember an year or so back, one of my friends who was working for UN there at the time suggesting that media is not reporting this right. The battle is similar to Egypt between hardcore Islamist rebels and Secularist who support Assad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The US military sprayed 76000000 litres of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons in the Vietnam war. This isn't good ol' fashioned Uncle Sam bashing for the sake of it. I find it extremely hypocritical that a country which can use chemical weapons without qualms to destroy the lives of millions of peasants and the ecosystem of an entire country, raising a rallying cry for usage of such weapons by other rouge governments today. Doing humanitarian work doesn't absolve the US government of their crimes. The L-e-T or whatever it calls itself these days did loads of humanitarian work in Pakistani controlled Kashmir post the earthquake there. Does that make them any less of a terrorist entity? Not to mention Iran. 2uz0NOCxN_Y As I said, purely on it military track record over last century, a terrorist state by definition of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 urrFL95bjcU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I have provided the link to the wiki entry on agent orange in my previous post. I am sure the Syrian government soldiers are not welcome in Syria either. Heck, they are even shot at. The reception they receive is more hostile than what the US soldiers got post the Vietnam war. Also, most of the Vietnamese refugees to the US were South Vietnamese collaborators or their kin. How many north Vietnamese people, whom the US napalmed/ bombed with agent orange were allowed migration to the US? My solution is to let the UN security council decide what is to be done. If there is a veto against an attack ( and there is likely to be one, given Russia and China are pro Assad) then the countries of the world should abide with what the UN has decided. In case of such a veto, USA has no business interfering. Interference is impinging upon the sovereignty of the country. That is in direct violation to charter of nations of the UN. Understandable is interference by neighbours, who have to face a refugee crisis or where there is direct conflict as a fallout of the Syrian war. The USA/France/UK bombing Syria because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons is not a solution. Where did he get the weapons from? Russia probably. Is the US going to impose sanctions on Russia for selling chemical weapons to a crazy dictator? So you are saying one country can veto what the rest of the world wants to do? BTW, the Kosovo liberation where people were getting killed under the Milosovic regime was also under the threat of a Russian veto. Russia and China will threaten to veto anything. I say throw them out of the Security council. I am not advocating a military intervention here, however security council veto/vote can't be the sole decider of world actions. 5 countries chose themselves into the security council, and use it to their advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts