Syria page 2

34 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

Of course he would want to make a big public fuss that the illegal weapons he was about to use were so badly guarded that a bunch of rebels hijacked them without anyone noticing.


He would make a public statement if the chemical weapons that he was known to have suddenly went missing.
 
Flag Post

Who gives a shit about them.
The only reason it’s on the news is because Obama is in it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by niceman555:

Who gives a shit about them.
The only reason it’s on the news is because Obama is in it.

Yes, the only reason it is news in UK, Russia, across Europe, the Middle East and the rest of the world is because of America’s involvement, that is how important America is.

Nothing to do with chemical weapons, suffering of innocents, natural resources or old cold war epeen, it’s all just about America because that is the centre of the universe.

 
Flag Post

America want to start a war with Syria not because of the treatment of the people, but because they’re broke and Syria is a big exporter of oil. If they really cared about the people of Syria they would take a different approach so that masses of people don’t die.

 
Flag Post

It goes further than that. I believe the US wants to go to war with Syria not because it wants oil, or to terminate a threat, but to keep Syria under its thumb. Why? Syria is not like Africa where there are lots of natural resources and diamonds and stuff. Two reasons:

1)Power is power. Syria belonging to US in practicality(though never in name) would mean the USA has one more resource to use in the future.

2)More importantly, to scare the Middle Eastern states. The US has built up a reputation of being a country you don’t want to fuck around with. Osama bin Laden crashes two planes, and they gun him down in his own house. German ships attack an American ship, and it enters World War I. Japanese want to bomb a harbour? Fucking atom bomb on their cities. Now, with the Arab Spring and all the uprisings and shit like that, the US feels as though teh Middle Eastern is forgetting this lesson. It wants to utterly own Syria so that future people who might be tempted to use chemical weapons will think twice. “Maybe I shouldn’t screw around with America, look at what happened to Syria”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Helltank:

It goes further than that. I believe the US wants to go to war with Syria not because it wants oil, or to terminate a threat, but to keep Syria under its thumb. Why? Syria is not like Africa where there are lots of natural resources and diamonds and stuff. Two reasons:

1)Power is power. Syria belonging to US in practicality(though never in name) would mean the USA has one more resource to use in the future.

I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that sentiment: I don’t think the US’s intervention in Syria really has anything to do with natural resources per se. I really think it’s just because Obama made that “red line” statement a year ago, and so the U.S. would lose some credibility on the international stage if he hadn’t started the process of retaliating once Syria used chemical weapons. It says a lot that the “retaliation” has now lost pretty much all of its force since Russia started brokering that agreement to have Syria destroy all of their chemical weapon supplies.

 
Flag Post

Okay, imagine that the Middle East oil is a giant pie.

US does not have a slice of the pie. So it gains, through both the pen and the sword, a slice. So now it has a slice. Yummy yum yum. Oil is fun. But it wants more. Pie is super-expensive right now so the more it gets, the more profit it can make. So the US keeps grabbing more pie. Then a tinpot dictatorship comes and steals their pies by waving around WMDs and nukes and stuff. So the US beats up the dictatorship and gets its pie back. That’s fair enough.

But the US really, really loves its pie. So much that it doesn’t want the pie to be stolen in the first place. It needs to scare the tinpots so they won’t even think about going near the US slice. What does it do? It takes one country, claims that it has WMDs (falsely) and invades it. Everyone is scared as fuck, their pie is safe. BUT someone finds out that they’re using false pretenses. Giant shitstorm.

So now we have Syria. Tinpot again. Again, WMD right in their faces. They’ve already established that they’re strongly against WMDs and will take military action to oppose it. If they DON’T, the other tinpots will get cocky, think they’re scared and do what they like. They have to back up their “against WMD” statements(such as the invasion of Iran, the red line statement and so on, which was initially created to justify getting more pie) through force to show their seriousness.

Yet, they cannot afford to invade under false pretenses again. The likelihood of chemicals being thrown around in Syria is high enough that they’re obligated to take action but not high enough that they’ll rush out and risk another false WMD claims controversy. So they tell everyone they’re investigating the situation(they probably are, in actual fact. Want to make sure there’s actually nukes before attacking). They hope that one of two things will happen:

1)Syria turns out not to have chemical weapons, they can safely back off without appearing weak
2)Syria DOES have chemical weapons, it invades, makes an example of Syria, gets pie, gets power

But the situation is maddeningly inconclusive. Nobody can’t say with absolute certainty that Syria(or should I say the Assad regime specifically) actually has chemical weapons. Russia has a big ol’ safe slice and wants the war to end so their pie will be stabilized and they can start selling and buying it properly again without the wildly swinging prices. It proposes a peaceful solution; disarm and we do nothing. Assad agrees, and thus is the saving grace for the Americans.

1)America looks badass, like their threatened might has forced Syria into disarming
2)America does NOT look like a warmongering tyrant as no direct military action is actually taken
3)America makes an example of Syria, to show the rest that they can handle tinpots with chemical weapons easily
4)Syria is disarmed of weapons, good luck with stealing anybody’s pie now Assad

The only thing lacking is Syria’s small slice of the pie and maybe some political power by bringing Syria under their thumbs, but that’s reasonable enough. The above four points make agreeing to the Russian proposal very attractive now.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

China, Syrian supporters, have said the west is rushing to conclusions before the facts are availiable.

I definitely agree. We’re not even completely finished with the war in Iraq… and for what? Syria is in the midst of a civil war – with deaths of hundreds of thousands and violent attacks daily as the result for the severe violation of human rights. With the west invading, only more deaths would occur, as well as a deadly enemy (The government of Syria) proven ruthless to protesters/soldiers captured. I think that the US may also be violated several War Rules of Engagement. Though i feel for the outrageous number of deaths occurring daily, I think the US should at least wait before drawing conclusions and/or invading. this is my opinion only c:

 
Flag Post

This reminds me of Iraq.
“There may be a weapon in Iraq that comes in the shape of a mushroom”
And we went to war.
Well, America is so ****ed up.