Toribash
Original Post
American Military intervention in Syria
Since most of you know, there's been a big fuss in the political world about whether or not the USA should launch a military operation in Syria in order to stop the use of chemical weaponry.
America is accusing the Syrian regime under Bashar Al-Assad of using chemical weapons against rebels and civilians.

Russia, on the other hand, is asking for proof of this alleged attack. They do not believe it was Assad, but rather the rebels themselves.

Personally, I think America isn't going to invade Syria for humanitarian reasons. I made a thread about how America was going to invade Syria as to weaken Iran, but that thread was closed prematurely.
You can still read it, though.

I argued that America was going to invade Syria, which is an ally of Iran. Iran is selling gold for non-dollar currencies, which is detrimental to the value of the dollar. I suspect that in the future, Iran will be invaded as well.

Who do you think launched the chemical attacks? What do you think that should happen?
f=m*a syens
I think that Russia will not accept any proof. They(Russia) know that they selling weapons to Assad and have their own military base on Syrian territory and if Assad will fall
they gonna lost it all.
Originally Posted by http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2013/09/02/China-says-concerned-about-unilateral-military-action-against-Syria.aspx
China has said that no side should rush to pre-judge the results of an investigation by U.N. chemical weapons experts in Syria, who it said should carry out an objective and impartial investigation in consultation with the Syrian government.

Hong repeated that China opposed the use of chemical weapons by any side and that China supported the independent, objective investigation by the U.N. experts.

"China expressed serious concern about preparations by relevant countries for unilateral military action," Hong said.

"Any action by the international community ought to respect the rules of the U.N. Charter and basic norms of international relations and avoid further complicating the Syria issue and avoid further disaster for the Middle East."

China - the voice of reason.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...814_story.html
Legitimate argument, why is USA responding so strongly to chemical attacks instead of other deaths?


I think the correct response is UNSC intervention. NATO or US don't really have a stake in this.
The only thing i am worried about is that the military base will be in our country so there will be a lot of war going in our country (Jordan)
we are all preparing to the chemical weaponry
but here is what it will be
america will attack syria russia will not approve and it will attack america a lot of europe countries will help America and Iran and Russia will help Bashar Al Assad
but Britain will not get in this fight
but we in Jordan will eat shit out of this fight
but we are currently having a sit in
but i think Bashar did send chemical attacks cause like Otto Von Bismark said:"Blood and Iron speech" which means you gotta defend your place as a king or anything even if you have to kill
(but i think it means:
that they would use blood (hard work, the power of the people) and iron (technology, weapons, etc) to succeed and unify the German territories.)
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
China - the voice of reason.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...814_story.html
Legitimate argument, why is USA responding so strongly to chemical attacks instead of other deaths?


I think the correct response is UNSC intervention. NATO or US don't really have a stake in this.

Good point. One could argue "But chemical attacks are much worse!"
Chemical attacks are indeed an atrocity to behold, but so are the rest of the murders that took place. If anything, the US was just biding its time until the Syrian regime slipped. Or even better, they made their own reason up (again).
Thoughts to consider:

1) Syria isn't stupid. They know that a sharp turn like using chemical weapons was going to evoke some kind of reaction.
2) There is no sound evidence of who launched the attack.
Some say it was the rebels.
Some say it was the regime under Assad.
3) The USA made up false reasons before.
4) MASS MEDIA ATTENTION! Seriously, how many times have we seen the images of those dying children on TV? All I see on TV is that empathetic image. No real analysis of what's happening, opinions of people who actually know something about the matter, ...

Either way, anyone can judge that something fishy is going on.
f=m*a syens
my family and I have alot of knowing in Syria
In a normal day more than 500 people die
its shitty in there they get a lot of missles everyday
media never give the truth
they could be working for Bashar and hide everything
might be working for Israel or America and give a wrong news to get a perrmision or something to attack
but most of our knowing in Syria returned to Jordan(which is their original country)
so we can't broadcast anymore
but I think america and the attacking countries will make something to convict Bashar and attack him
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
China - the voice of reason.

I hope you're joking, because it's effectively concrete that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
I hope you're joking, because it's effectively concrete that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons.

Huh? What's wrong with having an independant body verify the evidence before going to war and potentially slaughtering thousands of innocents?

Israel and USA don't exactly have a clean track record.



I'm all for giving the UN control over who goes to war and when. It sure as hell ain't USA's job to police for the OPCW. I would definitely be happier if the UN takes over on that front.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Huh? What's wrong with having an independant body verify the evidence before going to war and potentially slaughtering thousands of innocents?

Israel and USA don't exactly have a clean track record.

Because the independent body takes weeks to verify something that multiple national agencies have already concluded, and in that time Syria only worsens.

Apart from that though, treating China's diplomatic releases as sage advice, or as its actual position is silly.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I'm all for giving the UN control over who goes to war and when. It sure as hell ain't USA's job to police for the OPCW. I would definitely be happier if the UN takes over on that front.

The toothless UN that can do little thanks to Russia's presence on its security council?

Surely you can acknowledge that the UN is utterly useless in terms of actual military action. The US polices because the UN doesn't.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Because the independent body takes weeks to verify something that multiple national agencies have already concluded, and in that time Syria only worsens.

"If USA and it's allies say X, that's good enough for me!!!"
Please, no.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Apart from that though, treating China's diplomatic releases as sage advice, or as its actual position is silly.

It's not "sage advice" it's a realistic and pragmatic course of action. Verification if absolutely necessary.

Imagine if independent verification was considered mandatory in 2003. How many lives would have been saved? How many billions of dollars would not have been wasted? How many beautiful cities and how much scenery would still be in tact?
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
The toothless UN that can do little thanks to Russia's presence on its security council?

Surely you can acknowledge that the UN is utterly useless in terms of actual military action. The US polices because the UN doesn't.

UN does a lot of good, and having voting is a good thing. I don't agree with the veto process, but I can see why it is used.

Seeing countries like USA or Russia abuse their positions is very bad. The UN should propose "If independent verification of banned weapon usage is attained, then should we perform an intervention?", naturally Russia will be forced to agree or face massive backlash.

I don't know why UN hasn't absorbed policing of various treaties already. If UN absorbed them, and countries were required to deploy according to UN requests, we wouldn't see USA slamming their dick all over random countries, and the world would be a much better place.

So yes, between waiting for UN verification, and having USA invade whoever they please, I'll pick the former.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff