Hagel: Evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


It is not that I don't agree with you, I would like to regard myself as "well informed", but there is a difference between low-level warfare (low intensity) and a total state collapse with ensuing civil war and that is what I think must be stopped. It's quite enough with one civil war, in fact one is too many. Though I am painfully aware that the situation is about the same in Iraq ("mission complete", ey?) Libya and Yemen (not really the same area but in the same "sphere") still not nearly as devestating.

Looking at how things have been a-brewing I think it will be worse before it gets better. Egypt, Bahrain and possibly Iran is going to meet the same flaming "untergang".

What still stands though, despite the hopelessness of it all, is my human compassion and outrage over all this since very early on regarding this conflict.
After Rwanda R2P was signed in the UN. Now I know that was all just talk, as usual, but it still pisses me off!

There is no need to "break" anything to me, trust me, but I feel it is my duty as a fellow human being to react in the way I do.

This is all in the end the result of one thing: the UN system, with special concern to the Security Council, has reached its critical end. An obsolete institution that we keep investing trust in, has come to bring more harm to world peace and security than good.
And who pays for that? The civilian populations who had nothing to do with this war in the first place.
This world stinks.

reply to post by Nyiah
 


Who are "we"?


Originally posted by ChuckNasty
So what if the Syrian Govt wanted to use Chem weapons...it is their country, not ours. They have the right to defend themselves.


If I didn't know better, I'd call the Syrian Electronic Army on that quote.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
My question is, if the United States did nothing, would any other country do something?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Interesting question.

In Mali at least the lion part was done by others than the US, though the US helped out with some minor aspects. The same, if I am not mistaken, happened in Tchad 2008.

In most other cases, this is kind of the "other side" of being the military hegemon: if you want to be all over the world, keeping things under control, you need to be all over.
Of course, the EU could do something if there was a functioning military capacity, which is not there at the present. Some parts of the Arab League has been pro intervention but serious diplomatic issues is obstructing that.

USA/NATO has all the gear so without them it wouldn't play out very well, at least not if we talk direct military action. The UN without USA/NATO support is historically very rare but that is also part of the US hegemony- if you want to own, you gotta pay.

At least from my judgement, I think there would have been an intervention early on if Russia hadn't vetoed against it. But that is yesterday's news. The current situation is very messy. To intervene now would be to ask for a second Afghanistan and it seems like that won't happen until the bill is paid for that great mistake...

The "west" has invested (too much) trust in US capacity since after WWII. This is how it turns out in the long run, I reckon.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I'm on the side of the army of a sovereign state. Not a rebel force comprised of inter-national "rebels" whom are involved with terrorist organizations.

If the "rebels" win, we have a messy hotbed that will produce more insurgency.
If the Syrian army wins we have at the very least a functioning and somewhat organised society ruled by law and order.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm puzzled by Hagel's announcement because he's omitted how those chemical gases where moved out of Iraq
into Syria .... Just do the research regarding 1988 Halalja attack.

Somewhere online will be the photos of the convoys moving crap out of Iraq into Syria.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Covertblack
My question is, if the United States did nothing, would any other country do something?


Appart form the UK which is already overstrecthed the only country with significant projection capabilitys is France and USA so they are the only ones who can do anything.
edit on 25-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I think with all the wars and deception of the past 50 years by usa and russia, that nazi germany looks saintlike, but of course the media demonises only what they want and gives and everyone else a free pass. Do as I say and not as I do.

USA is full of it! How many war campaigns and "terrorists" do we need? And why isn't anyone coming to save america from its own tyrannical government? Shrink the damm military industrial complex and close down some/many of the foreign military bases.

The "elite" have invested in building america into a monster and want to see this perpetuated at all costs.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


And why isn't anyone coming to save america from its own tyrannical government? .


I though that was the point of your 2nd amendment?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


And why isn't anyone coming to save america from its own tyrannical government? .


I though that was the point of your 2nd amendment?


I agree but just because people have guns doesn't mean much if they don't have a clue who the real enemy is and don't wish to do a damm thing about it. For example I see lots of neoconservatives on this board who were *all gung ho* about taking the second literally, YET still believe nothing odd happened in boston OR 9-11.

Some people wanna have guns just for the sake of having them I guess.

As for the liberals they are beyond clueless. I won't bother with the obamanoids who think democrats represent the 99% or are complicit in everything the party does just because they are in power and republicans are not.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by Covertblack
My question is, if the United States did nothing, would any other country do something?


Appart form the UK which is already overstrecthed the only country with significant projection capabilitys is France and USA so they are the only ones who can do anything.
edit on 25-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


USA is overstretched and bankrupt as well. I think we should be looking out for ourselves and getting rid of our domestic evil.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 


If the USA and Europe did nothing to start with we wouldn't be discussing the issue. This is the way I look at it. We have funded an illegitimate uprising which was possibly started by local thugs. We fund them, give them weapons and let then pretty much kill anything thats moves in Syria. While they are doing that, we blame the Syrian government for the crimes, continue to fund the rebels and let them kill more. North Korea scream, Syria go off the radar, Nth Korea hush up, Syria have used chemical weapons. No its up to us to save Syria after we pretty much allowed the problem to escalate for 2 years.

Know what I think? I think our leaders opinions, redlines or anything else do not habe any merit. I think they should just back up into a corner and get ready for a war crimes tribunal. Each and every one of them.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 

As usual your cheering for the intervention what a surprise. The FSA want an Sharia law and our MSM calls it an Moderate form of it.
edit on 25-4-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 

As usual your cheering for the intervention what a surprise. The FSA want an Sharia law and our MSM calls it an Moderate form of it.


I doesn't matter what Sharia Law they want, Sharia Law is not Islamic Law, it is the law of oppressors and dictators and we are looking to replace a secular law with this oppression while calling the secular leader a dictator himself



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 

I heard Colin Powell make the same claim before the UN General Assembly regarding Iraq also....so I agree that we should get legitimate verification before "changing the game".....



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Leta be real..If Chemicals were used by the Syrian govt (knowing NATO would attack) they would be raining down on Israel and Turkey



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
I doesn't matter what Sharia Law they want, Sharia Law is not Islamic Law, it is the law of oppressors and dictators and we are looking to replace a secular law with this oppression while calling the secular leader a dictator himself


Yes! Great insight.
Mixing the two up is a very simple mistake to make when being fed a dichtonomous, "either-or" picture of how the world works.
Islam has been portrayed as nothing but a penal system, both by western MSM and by radical muslims.
Sharia law is as outrageous for most modern muslims, living in modern cities and societies not much unlike our own. Islamic law and Islamic parties can be compared like Christian democats (popular in Europe) where the religion is just the base for a moral code.

All this is pretty OT though. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Do you imply that the situation in Syria is part of a US strategy to halt the growing sphere of influence that Iran is trying to bridge to the Mediterranian?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I feel for the poor people caught in the middle, but we don't need to be there. Both sides are bad for different reasons.
If we're going to spend money, do it at the refugee camps instead of more fracking war.

Just my humble opinion.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by DarknStormy
 

Do you imply that the situation in Syria is part of a US strategy to halt the growing sphere of influence that Iran is trying to bridge to the Mediterranian?


There is no one reason why Syria is in this position right now. We can look to Political, Religious or something completely different. It's not about oppression and dictatorship though. If it was, we would be in every gulf state and they would be the exact same as Syria right now. While we point fingers at Assad, Saudi Arabia are still chopping peoples fingers off



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
John McCain delcares War on Syria:



Thank god he doesnt have the power blood thirsty so and so .. wake up america if assad falls, the situation will only get worse , Iraq has 122,000 deaths since they were "liberated", dont get me wrong i do not support these dictators but change needs to happen from the people, NOT funded/ organised/supplied by foreign fighters and countries that have their own agendas at heart. Russia, Iran and maybe China are taking a stand here , this can only end badly syria startegically is the gateway to western control of the middle east. DO NOT BE FOOLED... "hearts and minds"... "hearts and minds" ...

www.iraqbodycount.org...





top topics
 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join