Originally posted by Tzeentch
So then you admit that there are situations in which civilian deaths are inevitable because attempting to prevent them would result in a worse situation later. Thus your posts attempting to attack me in this thread have basically just been bullshit.
So you are ok with Hilary taking money from them to help her, but you don't like them. I have never seen you say a word about it.
I saw an interesting interview from on of our german journalists with Ahmadinedschad, he asked him only stuff about the nuclear weapons and the answers Ahmadinedschad provided were pretty accurate, i think it was 2012 First, during this time Israel, a country with nuclear weapons, threated to bomb Iran with their "nuclear" weapons if they don't allow the NPT commite access to all military facilities, which is against the NPT contract. Iran gives the inspectors access to all nuclear facilities to see that there are no weapons made, also there are cameras that tape everything 24/7 going on there. Now he can't allow them access to every military facility as no country would do that, because then they would be more or less defensless against an invasion and to protect itself is the right of every country. Further he asked how many wars of aggression the iran started in the last hundred years and how many the other western countries started? The journalist wasn't really expecting questions so he ignored them and asked why he threatened to use his military against israel if israel starts to bomb the Iran. He just asked what Germany or any other country would do if they would be attacked, isn't it natural to defend itself? The most interesting part was the reasoning of him. How can he prove that he doesn't build nuclear weapons, how to prove a negative? He gives access to all valid facilities and goes by the contract, but all he gets is mistrust and sanctions. If he says they don't build them and if he bows to the rules of the contract, people should believe it.
This made me think
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialMight that be because it has nothing to do with this thread, or any of the threads I've participated in?
So you are ok with Hilary taking money from them to help her, but you don't like them. I have never seen you say a word about it.
I'm not even a fan of Hillary. She might be [barely] preferable to any of the Republican nominees, but she's still a snake in the grass.
You get rid of Assad... then what?
If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.
Besides, we do business with the Saudis, and the Saudis are filthy savages who still have laws on the books mandating execution for the crime of "Witchcraft."
Originally posted by Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.
Besides, we do business with the Saudis, and the Saudis are filthy savages who still have laws on the books mandating execution for the crime of "Witchcraft."
So why do we accept people like Sadam and Assad killing off his own people and then get mad we we do something about it?
Originally posted by Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.
Besides, we do business with the Saudis, and the Saudis are filthy savages who still have laws on the books mandating execution for the crime of "Witchcraft."
👆
Every change has to come from the inside and never from the outside, else it won't last and won't be an real change but opression.
Originally posted by Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.
This is playing right in Assad's hand. Why aren't there more decent people in the region? He killed them.
A transition government shouldn't be provided by Obama or Putin, but supported by Syria's neighbors and allowed to have a presence in the regions. Most refugees are in neighboring countries so it makes the most sense for them to support establishing a decent government.
Sadly Turkey has it's hands full right now.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Libya and Syria would both be better off if the West had kept their fingers out of other people's business though, tbh. Intervention with the purpose of taking down a country's government has always left things worse, so I'm not exactly sure why leaders keep trying to do it.
The current ISIS crisis came to happen as both a problem with intervention and lack of intervention. I agree that just destroying a government has proved to be a mistake more often than not, but absolute lack of intervention in general carries it's own problems.
Originally posted by BentleyNo one has asserted that the Assad regime should remain un-deposed, the train of thought is that it shouldn't be western nations doing the deposing. If the other countries in the ME want to work together and depose Assad, that's their business.
A transition government shouldn't be provided by Obama or Putin, but supported by Syria's neighbors and allowed to have a presence in the regions. Most refugees are in neighboring countries so it makes the most sense for them to support establishing a decent government.
Originally posted by Bentley
The current ISIS crisis came to happen as both a problem with intervention and lack of intervention. I agree that just destroying a government has proved to be a mistake more often than not, but absolute lack of intervention in general carries it's own problems.
ISIS would not be a thing if Syria and Iraq were not in the states that they're in, which is directly because of western intervention.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
No one has asserted that the Assad regime should remain un-deposed, the train of thought is that it shouldn't be western nations doing the deposing. If the other countries in the ME want to work together and depose Assad, that's their business.
Russia's intervention isn't really pushing them to get their hands dirty. Among those countries you'll find many buying cheap resources to ISIS themselves.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
ISIS would not be a thing if Syria and Iraq were not in the states that they're in, which is directly because of western intervention.
ISIS is in Syria because Assad was allowed to thrive, that's the exact opposite of intervention.
ISIS is in Syria because Assad no longer has control of the country and the West has been giving rebel groups there arms in the hopes of ousting him. Along with the fact that Syria neighbors an extremely destabilized country that is a fertile breeding ground for scum like them.
I mean, you are aware that ISIS has its origins in the invasion of Iraq, yes?
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
ISIS is in Syria because Assad no longer has control of the country and the West has been giving rebel groups there arms in the hopes of ousting him. Along with the fact that Syria neighbors an extremely destabilized country that is a fertile breeding ground for scum like them.
Assad had no control because the Syrians wanted him out, then he demonized his opposition by mixing them up with ISIS, building them up as a threat in order to stay in power. And with Putin's help, his plan is going on perfectly. Why? Because we refused to interfere when it was the most sensible choice as Assad gased his population.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I mean, you are aware that ISIS has its origins in the invasion of Iraq, yes?
But they wouldn't be the same problem if their sights were on a single country, their rise has been happening thanks to the lack on consensus on attacking both in Iraq and Syria.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
ISIS is in Syria because Assad no longer has control of the country and the West has been giving rebel groups there arms in the hopes of ousting him. Along with the fact that Syria neighbors an extremely destabilized country that is a fertile breeding ground for scum like them.I mean, you are aware that ISIS has its origins in the invasion of Iraq, yes?
In our history, he of course chose (2), but if he'd chosen (1) right then, before anyone was fighting and when Syria's military was still united and there wasn't a collapse of order, ISIS would have never gained a foothold in Syria. ISIS is 100% the fault of Bashar Al-Assad. You can't blame it on "Western support" for the rebels because in practical terms there literally was none until the last year or so after ISIS already became a huge threat.