Jump to content

Syria chemical weapons allegations

gs

By gs
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Clarke Mentor

Clarke

Posted
Posted
I find it hard to understand how America can fight the Al-Queda in one country and support it in another. Watch this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23924805
Although the second gulf war was a sham, Baghdad Bob wasn't exactly the best source of information. This guy seems much more reasonable but isn't your most neutral guide.
Didn't you know its the good Al Qaeda. Just like their Afghan/Pakistani counterparts' date= the good Taliban, the American way of life, the lure of freedom and democracy has turned some erstwhile members of the evil/bad Al Qaeda into your regular McDonalds loving Joes Mos. The tyrannical chemical weapon using despot Assad is against the all so innocent good Al Qaeda's idea of a peaceful Syria, where everything is decided by ballot. Hence the American support.
Do you even know who is AQ's enemy No. 1 ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
North Sea Tiger Newbie

North Sea Tiger

Posted
Posted
Although the second gulf war was a sham' date=' Baghdad Bob wasn't exactly the best source of information. This guy seems much more reasonable but isn't your most neutral guide.[/quote'] Agreed that this guy is not exactly credible but most of what he says makes sense. Another reason which raises doubts is this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23933681
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted
You'll never find me defending the excesses of US foreign policy, the second gulf war or even Guantanamo bay. But I am very glad that US foreign policy played a part in defeating fascism and more importantly defeating communism. Without the latter, the world would be a lot more red towards the end of the last century and history thus suggests it would be much worse. I'd love a strong, decisive and fair UN but short of that, I'll take American military superiority as the lesser of the evils compared to Russia, China or some Arab/African dictator flexing their sphere of influence.
That's pure conjecture. China may turn out to be a 'lesser evil' than the American empire. How can you make such a claim? Also, I wouldn't put it so simply. Communism (USSR) played a much bigger role in defeating Facism than Uncle Sam, or so my NCERT 10th standard text book says. And in the name of defeating 'evil Communism' the USA has been a human rights violator bar none in Vietnam. And, at the end of the day Communism is an idea/concept. One doesn't need military force, laced with napalm to defeat an idea. Ideas get outdated and they are irrelevant. That is what happened. USA may have 'defeated' the USSR, but that was more to maintain her own spheres of influence than 'contain Communism'. But we digress here.
Yes, you prefer watching many more millions die out of fascism, communism or just crazy military dictators. Except the intervention isn't about you or me, its about the many more that will fall victim to such WMDs which can be actively used since there's potentially no punishment for using them.
No, I do not prefer people dying. Neither to chemical weapons, nor to bullets and bombs. But it is US intervention, which I find wrong on many levels. Mainly that they've been perpetrators of similar crimes on a much larger scale before. They have no locus standi vis a vis the outrage over the use of chemcial weapons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
randomGuy Mentor

randomGuy

Posted
Posted

Few of the top best rated comments at huffingtonpost.com :

Syria is the prelude to IRAN..its all been planed far in advance and this whole thing is a con job.
We are going to regret this.
I thought these fools were supposed to represent their constituents. They seem to be ignoring the fact that the great majority of the American people don't want us to be the world police.
these corrupted clowns do not represent the people any longer... When will we say enough is enough?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Tendulkar Newbie

King Tendulkar

Posted
Posted
No' date=' you've given me no choice after insinuating that politicians support terrorists for Muslim votebanks - I take back my apology.[/quote'] Well they do. O sorry you think these politicians are being secular!! example Bihar agriculture minister says after 5 soldiers killed in poonch that pakistan cant be held responsible as they are indias younger brother............ i.e muslims please vote for me. This tactic no doubt is effective and many muslims like this supprt of pakistan and and islamic terror people
Link to comment
Share on other sites
someone Collaborator

someone

Posted
Posted

Seems like the outsider is still the same, in denials as always.

Anyways, back to this issue Lavrov speaks of double standards, personal aspect in Western attitude to Middle East The approaches of outside players to the developments in the Middle East and North Africa are determined by double standards and sympathies for certain leaders in the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said. "If we speak of the Middle East and North Africa, then what we call double standards are apparent," he told MGIMO students on Monday. "There is an apparent personal aspect when personal dislike for a specific authoritarian leader prompts the strong need to topple him by any means, while authoritarian leaders who don't arouse personal dislike and who are supporters and allies of our Western partners are not discussed at all," he said.
Think the last sentence deserves more attention, double standards really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clarke Mentor

Clarke

Posted
Posted
That's pure conjecture. China may turn out to be a 'lesser evil' than the American empire. How can you make such a claim?
1) The way they have treated their own people 2) Their best buddies are North Korea & Pakistan
Also, I wouldn't put it so simply. Communism (USSR) played a much bigger role in defeating Facism than Uncle Sam, or so my NCERT 10th standard text book says.
True, USSR faced almost 80% of the Axis forces. But USA was the undisputed leader on the Western front. If I might add, USSR & Nazi Germany had a treaty on not fighting each other until Operation Barbarossa happened. United States on the other hand willingly sent its soldiers and equipment to fight Nazi Germany.
And in the name of defeating 'evil Communism' the USA has been a human rights violator bar none in Vietnam. And, at the end of the day Communism is an idea/concept. One doesn't need military force, laced with napalm to defeat an idea. Ideas get outdated and they are irrelevant. That is what happened. USA may have 'defeated' the USSR, but that was more to maintain her own spheres of influence than 'contain Communism'. But we digress here.
No one's denying Vietnam, but communism being just an idea is theoretical nonsense. It was communist military forces that came marching into South Korea, Vietnam & Afghanistan among other countries including our claimed territory and left unchecked would create much many more purges, cultural revolutions and other social engineering successes besides being economic powerhouses.
No, I do not prefer people dying. Neither to chemical weapons, nor to bullets and bombs. But it is US intervention, which I find wrong on many levels. Mainly that they've been perpetrators of similar crimes on a much larger scale before. They have no locus standi vis a vis the outrage over the use of chemcial weapons.
Agreed, its morally or legally not justified. Its simply the outcomes of taking action vs otherwise where some of us express our concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ravishingravi Grand Master

ravishingravi

Posted
Posted
Agreed, its morally or legally not justified. Its simply the outcomes of taking action vs otherwise where some of us express our concern.
Not so simple I am afraid. Let us take two recent examples. How many men, women and children have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Now some might argue that 2 of the above countries were reeling under cruel rulers who were screwing their people anyway. But on the question of morality, if the idea was a regime change for the greater good of people. I might, I just might cater or at least be open to that line of thought. After all the carpet bombing against might taliban, it took a covert operation to get the king pin ten years later. And where are WMDs in Iraq under the guise of which we liberated their people who are slaughtering each other by the dozen on daily basis. Are we to not question the defence contractors who have huge stake and interest in war and subsequent re building and have strong lobbyist in Congress ? Simply don't think US action have strongest moral grounding. Politically yes, they can be justified. On Iran, who installed the Shah of Iran who tortured millions of people including clerics, radicalizing the masses and leaving what we are left with today ? Did they intervene when Saddam was using chemical weapons all these years ? Who gave a go ahead to massacre on East Timor or killing of Chilean president ? I ll not bring activities in Nicargua and Vietnam. I don't accept that Capitalism V/S Communism was fought over a fist fight in Vietnam. That maybe the narrative sold, but it is eventually success of Capitalist nations and aspirations of people that killed Communism. Having said this, given how powerful US military is, I am still comforted that it is Americans who have this power. Any other nation and we would have been doomed. I do call them Terrorist nation, but the truth is in the history of man kind, the most powerful nations have exercised force at different times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clarke Mentor

Clarke

Posted
Posted

^ Gosh, one more person mentions 2003 Iraq war in this thread and I'll start going neocon and axis of evil and all other Cheney propaganda. Afghanistan is actually an example of righteous intervention supported by a multitude of generally peaceful nations. If you're putting the body count on the Americans then that's grossly unfair and I will never accept the cause and effect reasoning. They did learn the cost of nation building at the expense of their money and lives and seem to be keeping away from it for the recent conflicts. How can you discount the bankrupting of USSR when talking about defeating Communism ? It was the substantially escalating cost of its conflicts in the Cold war and the race to keep up with American military power that burnt the Soviet budget. If that were unchecked, the so called aspirations would be brutally crushed for a longer period of time over greater territory than previously possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
^ Gosh, one more person mentions 2003 Iraq war in this thread and I'll start going neocon and axis of evil and all other Cheney propaganda. Afghanistan is actually an example of righteous intervention supported by a multitude of generally peaceful nations. If you're putting the body count on the Americans then that's grossly unfair and I will never accept the cause and effect reasoning. They did learn the cost of nation building at the expense of their money and lives and seem to be keeping away from it for the recent conflicts. How can you discount the bankrupting of USSR when talking about defeating Communism ? It was the substantially escalating cost of its conflicts in the Cold war and the race to keep up with American military power that burnt the Soviet budget. If that were unchecked, the so called aspirations would be brutally crushed for a longer period of time over greater territory than previously possible.
2003 Iraq War :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swing_n_Speed Newbie

Swing_n_Speed

Posted
Posted
Thats not the reality, just what you want. Your umreeca haterade is spilling over brah
Just stating facts. Refute it if you can. And no it's not umreeca haterade you wan*er, just pointing out how a few in congress are working for their own selfish interests, much to the peril of many. But alas you can keep ur blinkers on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...