Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

End Game. It's time for Western Military Intervention in Syria.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


It's never time for intervention in Syria. It is a place that is riddled with Al Qaeda and their sub terrorist groups along with Hezbollah fighting for Assad. If Assad falls and these terrorists win the Muslim Brotherhood will step in and take over but more importantly the terrorists will remain there still causing terror. Libya before the civil was a beautiful well developed country but thanks to NATOs massive bombing campaign and the battles inside the cities it was completely destroyed. Libya is a hell hole right with a weak AND corrupt gov't while being infested with Al Qaeda terrorists.

Too bad we can't ask the Libya people if they like life better now or 4 years ago.




posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I'm sure that the plans are on the table. Problem being how to deal with the rebels, who, as I said before, cannot be trusted given the ties to Al Quada.
So on one side you have a murdering dictator who has lost credibility and on the other you have terrorists.

Let them fight it out? We tried that. The fact that it's beginning to spread (even the Israelis are in on it now, on their own it would appear. That might not be a good thing btw,) tells me that something has to be done.
Many here seem to think that letting the dominos fall is the best thing. They are entitled to their opinion, as I am to mine.
Thanks for your concise/ non threatened input. Breath of fresh air

edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by Terminal1
 


So Assad or the rebels could chem weapon the crap out of each other and their neighbors?
Is there any red line?

Or is it knee-jerk NO NO NO!

As I said, there comes a time to act. imo that time is now.




As far as I know Assad has not used chemical weapons because he knows if he does the west will intervene. The recent accusations of his gov't using chemical weapons did a 180 and now the UN is stating the rebels may have used them instead.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


OK, what's the plan? What are the details? Specifics?

So when are you heading over there? And this whole 'I am a worker bee' won't cut it. We have had enough 'westerners' with this cop out for too long.

FYI, I have spent many seasons in wonderful dirt piles around the globe while my fellow Americans cared so much, they couldn't pull themselves away from DWTS or whatever to find Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/et al on a map. But by-God "we" need to get over there and make things right!

I swear the next coward who uses "we", I am going to kidnap and airdrop into the festivities. No worries, the smell of feces and cordite has been known to spawn an epiphany or two on how the world works.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


I believe your intentions are good but meaningful change in Syria will not come from more bloodshed.
edit on 11-5-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 



(Reuters) - Twin car bombs killed 43 people and wounded many more in a Turkish town near the Syrian border on Saturday and the government said it suspected Syrian involvement. The bombing increased fears that Syria's civil war was dragging in neighboring states despite renewed diplomatic moves towards ending two years of fighting in which more than 70,000 people have been killed.



When is enough enough?

The "stay out of it" theory is fine, UNTIL A NATO MEMBER IS ATTACKED
By Syria OR the "Rebels"

That's why they call it "Allies"

I support the Wests allies. You can support whoever you like


edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



There seem to be quite a lot of threads of late on the Syrian civil war that are actually really quite ignorant of events in Syria. The authors of these threads seem to be advocating various solutions that are frankly utterly pointless or just so extreme there is no equilibrium to the cost/benefit delicate balance.

You are wrong in your assumption that a "no fly zone" is not on the table.
Ignorant on Syria? I am pointing out that people are dying in Syria every day and NO ONE seems to want to do anything about it.
How, exactly, is that ignorant?

Your post was engineered to urk me, that is plain.



One really good reason why a no fly zone is out of the question is because of all of Syria's anti air missile defense systems. Gaddafi had surface to air missile's via portable over the shoulder rockets but Syria's air defense is much more sophisticated than that. So the only way NATO is going to implement a no fly zone is if they can take out all of Syria's air defense sites. As of right now they're not going to risk it because Syria's allies may have something to say about it and there in lies another real consequence, what about Russia and or China, amongst others?
edit on 11-5-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


again there is zero evidance just now that Turkey was attacked by the Syrian state and even if it has then big deal, article 5 has only ever been used once, just because Turkey is a NATO member does not mean we need to get involved when terrorists attack.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Terminal1
 

Dear Terminal1,

You're absolutely right, it is confusing because it came from my confused mind. This issue baffles me. I suppose what I was suggesting, (in the hypothetical) is that since there are killer terrorists on both sides, why bother to choose sides? If a hundred people were killed every hour the fighting continues, regardless of who they are, would that serve as a deterrent to fighting?

Ok, that's ruthless, barbaric and irresponsible, but even when one side declares victory, the killing will continue.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


I do not believe in the good guy/bad guy thing. It's cliche but most folks in the world are OK and just want a life.

Yes, there are s*** heads out there. Some are local thugs, some hold political office, others run multi-nationals. Unfortunately, the law will only support your effort against the first one. The other two groups write those laws in order to keep the first group from muscling in on their gravy train. The good folks just wanting a life are disposable.

Today it is Syria. Tomorrow, who knows. I do not want to see good folks of anywhere get blown up. But what is the plan? Go there or don't go there, injustice will occur as you can only stop 1/3 of the problems.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by ABNARTY
 



(Reuters) - Twin car bombs killed 43 people and wounded many more in a Turkish town near the Syrian border on Saturday and the government said it suspected Syrian involvement. The bombing increased fears that Syria's civil war was dragging in neighboring states despite renewed diplomatic moves towards ending two years of fighting in which more than 70,000 people have been killed.



When is enough enough?

The "stay out of it" theory is fine, UNTIL A NATO MEMBER IS ATTACKED
By Syria OR the "Rebels"

That's why they call it "Allies"

I support the Wests allies. You can support whoever you like


edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


So what is your ideal solution?
Invade or contain the fighting, if the best idea is to contain the fighting and let nothing in or out of Syria then we will have more dead bodies faster than we can say peace. Invasion, be it for peace keeping reasons or not would make Afghan and Iraq look like policing a school playground, don't forget this is a religious war that is happening in Syria as much as anything else. That means people are fighting for what they believe in regardless of ethics, it is an important point to consider.

Personally I think we should "seige both sides" and allow neither any form of backing from external forces... If this really is a civil war then lets be civil about it... you would not let a fair fight be manipulated from outside help if it was man to man, you would honour the fact that this is a dispute with nothing to do with you and the most you should be doing is stopping anyone jumping in.

As for Israel I have respect for the Jew but not the nation, opportunists in every sense of the word and the actions last week spoke louder than any words could ever echo.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 


Do what they did in Bosnia. This side is yours, that side is theirs, I'm not trying to make it sound easy. It's not. Religeous fanatics should be separated if they cannot understand to live with each other.
Lots of white vehicles in the middle.
Let them suck on their hatred towards one another for a while without actually killing each other.
Problems solved? No.
Violence quelled?
yup.
edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by RAY1990
 


Do what they did in Bosnia. This side is yours, that side is theirs, I'm not trying to make it sound easy. It's not. Religeous fanatics should be separated if they cannot understand to live with each other.
Lots of white vehicles in the middle.
Problems solved? No.
Violence quelled?
yup.
edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


and how do you do that if Russia and China veto any move made by the UNSC



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


They may tag along, once tshtf. Maybe... You'd think they'd want to be in there. (Russian Ego) Hard to say.
edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


As I have said though I'd rather no quarter gave on either side, showing favouritism gives hope and plus your idea would most likely be veto'd and if not WILL result in more death. Screw the foreigner who knows nothing of our fight is the kind of reasoning that would be held behind attacking Nato forces if they were doing such things in the area.

I honestly hope for that beautiful country to not be covered in blood, but it is and we have poor ideas to stop it's decorating regime.

Edit
I'll also add my idea of containment is not even a good one, chances are we would find the end result to be a group of people surrounded by millions of dead weilding either a machete or a saracen blade.
Fact is this is a cesspit, absolute hell maybe there is some truth to the rapture eh?
edit on 11-5-2013 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


Canada, you want to go to war, go ahead. The US is tired and broke. We're staying home this time.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 


No idea is a "good one" unfortunately.

Those that call me or think of me as a "war monger" are free to, as long as they know that they carry the burden of this never ending civil war on their moral shoulders. The idea I support involves people dying, but an end to it. The other side supports people dying, and no end to it...Status Quo..
-So easy to say "do nothing" and look good here, So very hard to have the balls to say "enough is enough"
Thanks for your input
edit on 11-5-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by suz62
 






priceless
thanks for your input



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I definitely share your confusion. I sure wish there was a "good" way but sometimes there just isn't good solutions.

I just always been one to err on the side of caution and with Syria it is my opinion to be very cautious. It isn't an arena to go in with reckless abandon. Only thing I feel is on the right track is containment and a watchful eye.

Of course if you or I had the right key for that clusterfudge of a problem we wouldn't be here talking about it.

For all the problems this great country has... I am damned glad I was born here in it. Looking to places like Syria just reinforces those feelings.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
The ignorance displayed in this thread is truly astounding, especially for a "conspiracy" forum.

Are members here not aware, or at the very least, suspicious that it was TPTB that created this conflict in the first place? I thought that would be common knowledge here.

A member made a post on the very first page and was ignored by everyone... I was surprised to see not even one response to this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Once you understand that all of the revolts in the middle east in recent times, including Syria were NOT organic uprisings, but rather carefully engineered regime changes by outside powers for a specific agenda, the question posed in the OP becomes laughable.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join