Syria

Actually, I think they might use this, formally, as an excuse, to get away with it, juridically. An action of self-defense.

With humanitarian problems, I especially meant bombardments. Hitting airfields will not help an inch? I disagree.
 
No, it's a legitimate point. Look, I've been reading the Internet and it tells me, a lot of my liberal friends are telling me a few different things. One of which is "killing with bullets is no worse than killing with gas". To which I say...wtf. I don't know. I don't want anyone using gas. Ever.
 
So we agree that there is a legitimate reason to attack. But we disagree that this could help the population.
 
Forostar said:
With humanitarian problems, I especially meant bombardments. Hitting airfields will not help an inch? I disagree.
Click to expand...


Maybe it will prevent a few planes from taking off, but how does it stop the Republican Guards from massacring civilians, or tanks from rolling into villages? Last time I checked, neither have wings and therefore don't take off on airfields.
 
Well, then that would really be provoking. I can't see boots-on-ground action from the West anymore.

Once again, I agree with all your arguments Per, but not enough to convince me that talking is going to help. Assad doesn't care about anything.
:/
 
I'm not saying there should be only talking. Of course there must be action, but there are different kinds of action.

One possibility would be the US and Russia sitting down and negotiating about Russia dropping Assad. There is a precedent for that: Gorbachev dropped Saddam in 1990. If both sides would have been more open to cooperation rather than confrontation, things wouldn't even have gotten so far. I still think that Russia would be ready to accept an olive branch if the US offered it. A strike on Syria would, on the other hand deepen the trenches and before we know it, we'll have a new cold war.
 
Perun said:
I'm not saying there should be only talking. Of course there must be action, but there are different kinds of action.

One possibility would be the US and Russia sitting down and negotiating about Russia dropping Assad. There is a precedent for that: Gorbachev dropped Saddam in 1990. If both sides would have been more open to cooperation rather than confrontation, things wouldn't even have gotten so far. I still think that Russia would be ready to accept an olive branch if the US offered it. A strike on Syria would, on the other hand deepen the trenches and before we know it, we'll have a new cold war.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I am afraid the US and Russia have stopped talking.
 
Forostar said:
Also Germany wants to wait.
Click to expand...

I wonder where that news came from. Currently, nobody in the country knows anything about what the government is thinking. There is no clear statement at all.

Forostar said:
Hmm. I am afraid the US and Russia have stopped talking.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm not even saying I consider it likely it would happen, I'm just saying it would be an alternative.

That's the big problem we have here: We can come up with the best ideas in the world for all this, it remains a point somebody made on an online forum. It's not going to change anything.
 
I am not sure what else the UN will come up with ... it is not like whoever launched these will say "Hey, we did it, the weapons are over here". It is unlikely 100% proof of who launched these will occur ..and even if it is real close, the Syrians will keep saying it was the rebels (or their newer line, western backed rebels with the aid of Israel)
 
LooseCannon said:
The US isn't concerned about the people of Syria, though. The US is concerned that next time someone has a war that they want to get involved in that the opposition will use chemical weapons. They want to set a very large example of "use chemical weapons? WE WILL FUCK YOU UP. So don't even THINK about using it on us."
Click to expand...

I think this is exactly it. This was the whole deal with the Red Line and I am glad it looks like that line will actually mean something.
 
Perun said:
Kerry is going to pull a Colin Powell tomorrow, and the US is going to blow Syria up for better or worse.
Click to expand...

Not the same as pulling a Collin Powell, Powell was before Congress getting a vote to authorize action, Obama is not going to take this to the Senate, he is going to take his 90 days under War Powers
 
NATO just did their saying:
And evacuation movements come from The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2013/aug/28/syria-weapons-inspectors-resume-investigation-live
"Assad's forces appear to have evacuated most personnel from army and security command headquarters in central Damascus in preparation for a Western military strike," Khaled Yacoub Oweis writes.

Army units stationed near the capital have confiscated several trailer trucks, apparently to transport heavy weaponry to alternative locations, though no significant movement of military hardware has been reported, possibly due to heavy fighting near major highways, one of the sources added.

Among the buildings that have been partially evacuated are the General Staff Command Building on Umayyad Square, the nearby airforce command and the security compounds in the Western Kfar Souseh districts, residents of the area and a Free Syrian Army rebel source said. ..continued

​
 
I have no idea. I don't know what the individual parties stand for in this context, and I also don't think that there will be a government change. At least Merkel will still be chancellor afterwards. I think she's too much a pussy to get a proper agenda for this conflict ready before the election, and I think she hopes it'll all be settled afterwards.
 
Let me ask it another way then, does Germany (the government and the people) feel left out or that they perhaps should have gotten involved with the Libya affair and do you think there is a feeling that action in Syria could "make up for it" ... there is a probably a better phrase
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top