Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lucky

Question about Syria

Recommended Posts

Why are you against US intervention in Syria? From my understanding, Syria is mostly about competing oil pipelines: US and Qatar’s vs Russia and Iran’s. By being anti-interventionist you’re ok with Russia gaining more geopolitical power. Shouldn’t we be in favor of liberal democracies undercutting backward, mob run countries? Conflict is bad but there’s a bigger picture here.

More specifically, what’s your issue with the recent strikes on their chemical plants? They were given warning and let everyone evacuate and possibly even let them evacuate equipment but I’m not sure. So at best we neutered their chemical weapons program some, at worst it was all for theater and it didn’t do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


30 minutes ago, Lucky said:

Why are you against US intervention in Syria? From my understanding, Syria is mostly about competing oil pipelines: US and Qatar’s vs Russia and Iran’s. By being anti-interventionist you’re ok with Russia gaining more geopolitical power. Shouldn’t we be in favor of liberal democracies undercutting backward, mob run countries? Conflict is bad but there’s a bigger picture here.

More specifically, what’s your issue with the recent strikes on their chemical plants? They were given warning and let everyone evacuate and possibly even let them evacuate equipment but I’m not sure. So at best we neutered their chemical weapons program some, at worst it was all for theater and it didn’t do anything.

Well if you support US intervention in Syria to establish democracy.....then how can you only handpick Syria for that? 

Then there is the whole debate about what that costs the US and if the end result is actually benefitual to us. 

My issue with the 2 recent strikes is they were public theater.  Nothing more.  Both times they were yuge heads up.  First airfield strike did nothing big picture.  They could of used chlorine on their people the very next day if they wanted in regards to the 2nd.  We still don’t have confirmation they did more than use that.  So we easily trumped up how bad bombing that chemical research facility was IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucky said:

Why are you against US intervention in Syria? From my understanding, Syria is mostly about competing oil pipelines: US and Qatar’s vs Russia and Iran’s. By being anti-interventionist you’re ok with Russia gaining more geopolitical power. Shouldn’t we be in favor of liberal democracies undercutting backward, mob run countries? Conflict is bad but there’s a bigger picture here.

More specifically, what’s your issue with the recent strikes on their chemical plants? They were given warning and let everyone evacuate and possibly even let them evacuate equipment but I’m not sure. So at best we neutered their chemical weapons program some, at worst it was all for theater and it didn’t do anything.

so essentially we should invade syria for the sole purpose of gaining geopolitical power to establish our pipeline through Syria instead of Russia strictly for financial interests? loll and the US isn't in anyway a mob run country for doing that? :thinking:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd MUCH rather take our troops to South America and combat the drug lords PUSHING people to illegal enter America, or I'd much rather take our troops down to Africa and stop the genocides and Warlords down there.    But there is no oil there so.

I'm just tired of being world police but not being world police at the same time.     We can do more human good elsewhere.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zaximus said:

I'd MUCH rather take our troops to South America and combat the drug lords PUSHING people to illegal enter America, or I'd much rather take our troops down to Africa and stop the genocides and Warlords down there.    But there is no oil there so.

I'm just tired of being world police but not being world police at the same time.     We can do more human good elsewhere.    

We really don’t have to have boots on the ground anywhere to be the governing force of the world. 

He who controls the seas, controls the world - (Take your pick on who quoted that). 

Unfortunately, in today’s day and age with many other countries maintaining vast military presence. It would be imprudent for us to do the same. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

We really don’t have to have boots on the ground anywhere to be the governing force of the world. 

He who controls the seas, controls the world - (Take your pick on who quoted that). 

Unfortunately, in today’s day and age with many other countries maintaining vast military presence. It would be imprudent for us to do the same. 

 

 

The seas aren't doing anything for the places I mentioned is what I'm saying.     Help the helpless not the people that don't seem to want our help in the first place.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, E CaT PanTHer 2 said:

so essentially we should invade syria for the sole purpose of gaining geopolitical power to establish our pipeline through Syria instead of Russia strictly for financial interests? loll and the US isn't in anyway a mob run country for doing that? :thinking:

Why are you the only poster in this thread to recognize this? 

Newsflash:  Syria is a sovereign nation, that means they are the only ones that have the right to decide who is permitted to run a pipeline through their national territory.

The OP and other dolts in this thread should reverse the roles of the USA and Syria for a moment to see how incredibly imperialistic and immoral their sense of entitlement as Americans has become.

Oh, and about 600,000 civilians have been killed during the Syrian Civil War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lucky said:

Why are you against US intervention in Syria? From my understanding, Syria is mostly about competing oil pipelines: US and Qatar’s vs Russia and Iran’s. By being anti-interventionist you’re ok with Russia gaining more geopolitical power. Shouldn’t we be in favor of liberal democracies undercutting backward, mob run countries? Conflict is bad but there’s a bigger picture here.

More specifically, what’s your issue with the recent strikes on their chemical plants? They were given warning and let everyone evacuate and possibly even let them evacuate equipment but I’m not sure. So at best we neutered their chemical weapons program some, at worst it was all for theater and it didn’t do anything.

We have closed our borders to syrian refugees.   My issue on the strike is we are bombing a country that we wont let men, women and children who want out of the civil war come to our country for refuge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Why are you the only poster in this thread to recognize this? 

Newsflash:  Syria is a sovereign nation, that means they are the only ones that have the right to decide who is permitted to run a pipeline through their national territory.

The OP and other dolts in this thread should reverse the roles of the USA and Syria for a moment to see how incredibly imperialistic and immoral their sense of entitlement as Americans has become.

Oh, and about 600,000 civilians have been killed during the Syrian Civil War.

Is it really sovereign if it's leadership is propped up by Russia? Like if the people wanted a change in leadership, they can't. They have no power because Russia is behind Assad. If someone is going to control Syria, why let it be Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lucky said:

Is it really sovereign if it's leadership is propped up by Russia? Like if the people wanted a change in leadership, they can't. They have no power because Russia is behind Assad. If someone is going to control Syria, why let it be Russia?

Assad controls syria without russia - the US has to figure this may be the best short term solution let Assad stay in.

We started interventions in 2011 - Russia did not get involved into 2015.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Assad controls syria without russia - the US has to figure this may be the best short term solution let Assad stay in.

 

What if the people wanted a coup? No matter how Assad was elected, he's now being propped and supported by Russia so it's no longer a sovereign nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucky said:

What if the people wanted a coup? No matter how Assad was elected, he's now being propped and supported by Russia so it's no longer a sovereign nation.

We supported the coup long before Russia entered.  Can we say its a fair coup if the US and our allies propped up the rebels?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×