This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Obama: 'I Have Not Made a Decision' on Syria
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I firmly believe in doing the right thing regarding all humans, not just Americans. So if you made the case that we should take another course of action besides shooting missiles at regime troops--because they aren't the guilty party--that's one thing. Pally, whose post I was rebutting, was arguing that we should not do anything because Syria doesn't pose a threat to the United States. That's a separate matter. That's the nationalism I'm talking about. Turning a blind eye to the murder of children because they are not Americans is flat out wrong. Whether we strike at Assad or take another course of action, it's the idea that we should do nothing because those dead children belong to a different country from ours that offends me.
How did you think the First and Second World wars started exactly? By the West intervening when it didn't concern them.Cor wot?
The First World War started with a Bosnian assassinating a Serbian Archduke and then all of their allies--Western and otherwise--escalating it from there.
World War 2 either started (depending on your definition) when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 or when Japan invaded China in 1937.
The US didn't get involved until very late in both of those conflicts.
And personally, I reckon if America does attack Syria then all hell's gonna break loose and chances are, Assad's going to release all his chemical stock at the West and probably kill a whole load of civilians, maybe even you and me. I'm sure you understand why I don't want that.Syria has no means to launch chemical weapons at the US. The very idea is laughable.
Even if they could, I don't think the excuse of "Well, I might die!" merits standing idly by while children are being murdered in other countries. Lots of American soldiers died to stop Germany from murdering European Jews. I find your nationalistic attitude of "I don't care if foreigners are murdered, so long as my country is safe" absolutely abhorrent.
Post by
Snake387
The First World War started with a Bosnian assassinating a Serbian Archduke and then all of their allies--Western and otherwise--escalating it from there.
World War 2 either started (depending on your definition) when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 or when Japan invaded China in 1937.
The US didn't get involved until very late in both of those conflicts.
I'm not talking about the US. I'm talking about the West as a whole and since the US is part of it....
Syria has no means to launch chemical weapons at the US. The very idea is laughable.
I'm not talking about the US, I'm talking about the West as a whole. Like France, Germany, Britain etc. And how do you know Assad can't bomb say Nevada or some other low-profile state.
Even if they could, I don't think the excuse of "Well, I might die!" merits standing idly by while children are being murdered in other countries. Lots of American soldiers died to stop Germany from murdering European Jews. I find your nationalistic attitude of "I don't care if foreigners are murdered, so long as my country is safe" absolutely abhorrent.
Children are murdered every day. Do the cops care? And I find myself more important than other people, and I'm sure loads of other people do to. Plus, at least when the Allies were attacking Germany to liberate Jews it didn't result in a total disaster like Iraq, or Afghanistan which modern 'crusades' have done. Also, you have to look at it from a political point of view, apparently terrorists are helping the rebels, if you help the rebels and give them weapons to fight, you give terrorists weapons.
Post by
Gone
I firmly believe in doing the right thing regarding all humans, not just Americans. So if you made the case that we should take another course of action besides shooting missiles at regime troops--because they aren't the guilty party--that's one thing. Pally, whose post I was rebutting, was arguing that we should not do anything because Syria doesn't pose a threat to the United States. That's a separate matter. That's the nationalism I'm talking about. Turning a blind eye to the murder of children because they are not Americans is flat out wrong. Whether we strike at Assad or take another course of action, it's the idea that we should do nothing because those dead children belong to a different country from ours that offends me.
How did you think the First and Second World wars started exactly? By the West intervening when it didn't concern them. And personally, I reckon if America does attack Syria then all hell's gonna break loose and chances are, Assad's going to release all his chemical stock at the West and probably kill a whole load of civilians, maybe even you and me. I'm sure you understand why I don't want that.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s320/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg
Post by
Squishalot
How did you think the First and Second World wars started exactly? By the West intervening when it didn't concern them.
If you think that 'invading another country for the purposes of annexing them' qualifies as a subset of 'intervening', in a Syrian context, then sure. However, I think many would disagree with you.
Post by
Snake387
If you think that 'invading another country for the purposes of annexing them' qualifies as a subset of 'intervening', in a Syrian context, then sure. However, I think many would disagree with you.
Well I'm just pointing out that the First and Second World Wars started with stuff that didn't really matter all that much to the West. This, along with other things, might start a World War III and that wouldn't be very nice to be honest.
Post by
Gone
If you think that 'invading another country for the purposes of annexing them' qualifies as a subset of 'intervening', in a Syrian context, then sure. However, I think many would disagree with you.
Well I'm just pointing out that the First and Second World Wars started with stuff that didn't really matter all that much to the West. This, along with other things, might start a World War III and that wouldn't be very nice to be honest.
You realize both world wars started well before America became involved right?
Post by
Snake387
You realize both world wars started well before America became involved right?
Yep. But I'm not arguing about just America. I'm arguing about the West as a whole, which includes Western Europe etc.
Post by
Gone
You realize both world wars started well before America became involved right?
Yep. But I'm not arguing about just America. I'm arguing about the West as a whole, which includes Western Europe etc.
Most of World War I was fought in western Europe. World War 2 began when Germany, a western European country, invaded Poland, another European country.
Western Europe never "became involved" in either world war, it was the primary battleground for both of them, do you realize this? That's like saying an individual American state "got involved" in the Civil War.
Post by
Snake387
Most of World War I was fought in western Europe. World War 2 began when Germany, a western European country, invaded Poland, another European country.
Western Europe never "became involved" in either world war, it was the primary battleground for both of them, do you realize this? That's like saying an individual American state "got involved" in the Civil War.
Those wars were only fought in Western Europe because the West got involved. Poland fell before Germany easily so it wasn't really a war, and then the rest of Europe got involved and it became a war. There wasn't a war until the rest of Europe got involved.
Post by
Gone
Most of World War I was fought in western Europe. World War 2 began when Germany, a western European country, invaded Poland, another European country.
Western Europe never "became involved" in either world war, it was the primary battleground for both of them, do you realize this? That's like saying an individual American state "got involved" in the Civil War.
Those wars were only fought in Western Europe because the West got involved. Poland fell before Germany easily so it wasn't really a war, and then the rest of Europe got involved and it became a war. There wasn't a war until the rest of Europe got involved.
Except Hitler had long standing plans to invade the rest of Europe eventually, so it's not like the west instigated an otherwise avoidable war.
I'm sorry, are you really arguing
against
the intervention by France and England against Nazi Germany?
Post by
Snake387
Except Hitler had long standing plans to invade the rest of Europe eventually, so it's not like the west instigated an otherwise avoidable war.
I'm sorry, are you really arguing against the intervention by France and England against Nazi Germany?
Well, no, I'm actually pleased that they did but I'm pointing out that millions of people died in the First and Second World Wars, and, fortunately, it turned out all right, but now, with better technology, we don't know if we could win or not and then some civilians might die. I don't want to die just because of some children who are already dead. Oh and the world wars are very obvious examples of how people have died for citizens of a country who were already dead.
Post by
Gone
Except Hitler had long standing plans to invade the rest of Europe eventually, so it's not like the west instigated an otherwise avoidable war.
I'm sorry, are you really arguing against the intervention by France and England against Nazi Germany?
Well, no, I'm actually pleased that they did but I'm pointing out that millions of people died in the First and Second World Wars, and, fortunately, it turned out all right, but now, with better technology, we don't know if we could win or not and then some civilians might die. I don't want to die just because of some children who are already dead. Oh and the world wars are very obvious examples of how people have died for citizens of a country who were already dead.
Oh I see, so you're a coward. Well unless your actually a current member of the armed forces, you won't be in any danger over America going to war with Syria. Russia is never going to directly attack us over Syria, it isn't worth it to them just to keep Assad as a puppet.
And for the record, the west has a much stronger grip over the world now than it did during the WWI and WWII years.
Post by
Snake387
Oh I see, so you're a coward. Well unless your actually a current member of the armed forces, you won't be in any danger over America going to war with Syria. Russia is never going to directly attack us over Syria, it isn't worth it to them just to keep Assad as a puppet.
No, I'm just interested in my self-preservation. And, well, I'm looking more towards the future. Like I said, those nasty terrorists are part of the rebels, and since Obama's not planning on doing a ground attack, he's probably going to give the rebels, and by extension, terrorists weapons. That's a crazy idea.
And for the record, the west has a much stronger grip over the world now than it did during the WWI and WWII years.
But we rely too much on the Middle East, without the Middle East we wouldn't have any oil and the West loves oil. And say Syria turns into another Afghanistan or Iraq and we hear that a soldiers died every single day on the news? And we just start wasting soldiers. Or Assad goes out with a fight and bombs the West, hitting some innocent people who are just going to work or something.
Post by
Gone
But we rely too much on the Middle East, without the Middle East we wouldn't have any oil and the West loves oil. And say Syria turns into another Afghanistan or Iraq and we hear that a soldiers died every single day on the news? And we just start wasting soldiers. Or Assad goes out with a fight and bombs the West, hitting some innocent people who are just going to work or something.
Then say that, but don't imply that westerner's lives are somehow inherently more valuable than people in the middle east who will probably die anyway. For the record we would still be able to get oil without the Middle East, albeit a more finite amount. And I don't think Assad is in any way capable of attacking us in the West.
You have an extremely selfish way of looking at this. You're basically saying that war is fine, as long as our lives or livelihood aren't threatened at home, in which case let the mid east blow itself up.
Post by
Snake387
Then say that, but don't imply that westerner's lives are somehow inherently more valuable than people in the middle east who will probably die anyway.
I don't mean to imply that. As long as I'm alive and have a good life, I don't care who dies as long as their nobody close to me. Selfish, yes, but to me I am one of the most important people in the world for very obvious reasons.
You have an extremely selfish way of looking at this. You're basically saying that war is fine, as long as our lives or livelihood aren't threatened at home, in which case let the mid east blow itself up.
Exactly.
For the record we would still be able to get oil without the Middle East, albeit a more finite amount. And I don't think Assad is in any way capable of attacking us in the West.
And how quickly would that run out? Personally, I don't really care if the West gets no oil since I dislike the horror known as Global Warming and would be actually happy if all the fuel ran out and everyone started using electric cars but the Western world as a whole relies way too heavily on the Middle East for oil and from their viewpoint a war with the Middle East would be disastrous.
Post by
Adamsm
A full out war in the Middle East would be disastrous for everyone...since war rarely, if ever, honours the border lines.
Post by
Skreeran
A full out war in the Middle East would be disastrous for everyone...since war rarely, if ever, honours the border lines.I don't think anyone wants a full on war, but arguing about any sort if intervention at all just seems to be turning a blind eye to something horrible.
Post by
Snake387
I don't think anyone wants a full on war, but arguing about any sort if intervention at all just seems to be turning a blind eye to something horrible.
Isn't that what the UN is for? To sort out conflicts like these? And those charities?
Post by
Skreeran
I don't think anyone wants a full on war, but arguing about any sort if intervention at all just seems to be turning a blind eye to something horrible.
Isn't that what the UN is for? To sort out conflicts like these? And those charities?Guess what. The US makes up the majority of the UN Security Council's military force.
Post by
Snake387
Guess what. The US makes up the majority of the UN Security Council's military force.
What? And these US troops aren't neutral? What type of neutral organization is that?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.