Attack on Syria imminent

[TheoK]

A political mess has never been cleaned up in the history of mankind. Temporary solutions are implemented (usually in the form of a bloody, and catstrophic destruction of a state), but "solutions" are as fleeting as "the key to life" and such ideas. Sadly.

That's because there has never been a permanent anarchy in the world 

[ZEGH8578]

A political mess has never been cleaned up in the history of mankind. Temporary solutions are implemented (usually in the form of a bloody, and catstrophic destruction of a state), but "solutions" are as fleeting as "the key to life" and such ideas. Sadly.

That's because there has never been a permanent anarchy in the world 

I must say again - the human species is not inherently flawed (it is our developed social behaviour that is, mass multiplication of our numbers, and the exponential complexity of our society)

humans are naturally ruled in small groups of 20-1000 individuals, where an elder or team of elders are the leaders. This is our hard-coded "respect for elders" those who have more knowledge and experience, the sage, the scientist, the politician, your grandfather.

Humans, in these minimalistic conditions, thrive.

But that time has gone, and will never come back. We are an organism whos "original way of life" has abandoned us, and there are no rules or guidelines on this earth, to tell an organism what to do when they have become too successful for their own good, except to choke their own existence by over-consuming their resources.

Every single "ideal" solution we can imagine becomes unapplicable in real life, because this world is too vast, and people too many, to ever implement "one awesome idea!" to cover every corner of the world.

/cynicism

[lutra]

To me it now looks like the US is not going to bomb specific targets in Syria. Kinda think that would be wise in this situation. What could be the aftermath of those actions is the question being thought about by some.

Again, there's not a lot to gain, I believe.. but I'm tempted to say that maybe the Turks should help Syria and piecemeal, with the help of Syria's neighbours, trying to provide Syria's citizens a somewhat better life. But ja, that's naive.. I know.

Poor poor people, like kiddos or elderly folks, there.. is kinda my sentiment for quite a while now.

[conlang returns]

If our government actually cared about individuals living under destructive or even "inferior" non-American regimes, then we'd open our doors to immigration on our end, and negotiate with foreign states to allow prospective Americans out of their country.  Unfortunately, defence contractors control the process, and they don't like it when someone else is having a party to which they weren't invited. 

[RageBeoulve]

The fantasy dream is ending. Time to wake up and face what you've done, "progressives". Maybe even accept responsibility and help the rest of us clean up your fucking mess?

You kidding?  Google Hillary Clinton 2016.  They still asleep.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[Bastet]

The fantasy dream is ending. Time to wake up and face what you've done, "progressives". Maybe even accept responsibility and help the rest of us clean up your fucking mess?

You kidding?  Google Hillary Clinton 2016.  They still asleep.

I don't want to live on this Ahmed Angel anymore.

fixe.

[ZEGH8578]

Chemical attacks are a legitimate grounds for military action, because it has the danger of setting presedents. But even then, it would just be another can of war worms.

[RageBeoulve]

DUDE. Its none of our business! Did they use chemical weapons on us? Nope. Did they ask our divine messiah for help, or even his gay opinion? NOPE! Did WE fucking ask him? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SHUT THE FUCK UP, OBAMA!

IMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACH

[ZEGH8578]

DUDE. Its none of our business! Did they use chemical weapons on us? Nope. Did they ask our divine messiah for help, or even his gay opinion? NOPE! Did WE fucking ask him? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SHUT THE FUCK UP, OBAMA!

IMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACH

I'm not talking about Obama. Anybody should be obliged to react on the use of chemical warfare. Put USA aside, what about Italy? Turkey. India? Anybody.

I suggested Italy as a joke, but in reality they do have a formidable modern army. They even have an aircraft carrier, and their own design of MBT (which is a mark of only the most advanced nations!), and in terms of manpower, one of the largest armies of Europe. In fact, if they wanted to, they could probably rip Syria to shreds. Of course, that would cost a lot etc, but hypothecially.

[RageBeoulve]

DUDE. Its none of our business! Did they use chemical weapons on us? Nope. Did they ask our divine messiah for help, or even his gay opinion? NOPE! Did WE fucking ask him? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SHUT THE FUCK UP, OBAMA!

IMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACH

I'm not talking about Obama. Anybody should be obliged to react on the use of chemical warfare. Put USA aside, what about Italy? Turkey. India? Anybody.

No. Unless the chemical weapons are used against any of those countries BY Syria, or they ask any of them for help, then those countries are obligated to mind their own fucking business.

[ZEGH8578]

DUDE. Its none of our business! Did they use chemical weapons on us? Nope. Did they ask our divine messiah for help, or even his gay opinion? NOPE! Did WE fucking ask him? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SHUT THE FUCK UP, OBAMA!

IMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACH

I'm not talking about Obama. Anybody should be obliged to react on the use of chemical warfare. Put USA aside, what about Italy? Turkey. India? Anybody.

No. Unless the chemical weapons are used against any of those countries BY Syria, or they ask any of them for help, then those countries are obligated to mind their own fucking business.

No because chemical warfare goes into world-community territory. The use of chemical warfare sets a presedent. It's not about who attacked who, but it is one of these times when international communities _should_ act.

It's the same as with Rwanda. It was not good that the international community minded their own business. It was bad, in that case, and some cases like it, very bad in fact.
We are good at ignoring cases where we should have reacted, and then attack other places pretending to do it out of care.

The use of chemical weapons are textbook example of case that should be met with unanymous international hostility. Nothing to do with USA or not USA, or Russia or not Russia, but to open up for legitimization of chemical warfare - letting the world now: Yes, we allowed it to happen. Now you know.

We have ignored such before though, with Saddam and the Kurds, and it was a bad thing to ignore back then too. It made the later attack seem so much more out of place, and this has often been a point about the Iraq-war, as you may have noticed.

Again - don't see this as a "USA world police" matter, but a "international community - anybody - is obliged to react" matter.

[ZEGH8578]

I must repeat - that although I argue for the legitimacy of a military action as a response to chemical warfare, I'm first of all not talking about a coalition invasion, but a military action, a symbol - not for syria (cus that ship has sailed) but for everybody else. A reminder of the rules of the game, a "slap on the wrist" for the one who cheated and used sarin gas attacks, like he was playing WW1.

[conlang returns]

I must repeat - that although I argue for the legitimacy of a military action as a response to chemical warfare, I'm first of all not talking about a coalition invasion, but a military action, a symbol - not for syria (cus that ship has sailed) but for everybody else. A reminder of the rules of the game, a "slap on the wrist" for the one who cheated and used sarin gas attacks, like he was playing WW1.

The problem with that argument is that it gives the rebels the perfect excuse to use chemical weapons themselves and do a frame-up job against the leader of the very government they're trying to overthrow.  Can we really trust government officials whose campaigns are financed by defence contractors to sit around waiting for UN inspectors to prove that one side or the other is in fact the one who did it?

[ZEGH8578]

I must repeat - that although I argue for the legitimacy of a military action as a response to chemical warfare, I'm first of all not talking about a coalition invasion, but a military action, a symbol - not for syria (cus that ship has sailed) but for everybody else. A reminder of the rules of the game, a "slap on the wrist" for the one who cheated and used sarin gas attacks, like he was playing WW1.

The problem with that argument is that it gives the rebels the perfect excuse to use chemical weapons themselves and do a frame-up job against the leader of the very government they're trying to overthrow.  Can we really trust government officials whose campaigns are financed by defence contractors to sit around waiting for UN inspectors to prove that one side or the other is in fact the one who did it?

I agree, it is very problematic. It also is a "foot in the door" for further military action, that will culminate in a full on land invasion. Like I said initially, big can of war worms.

[RageBeoulve]

Is that right? What do you bet the us and a invades the shit out of Syria, stays a while afterwards for nation building, and when we leave there is a central Rothschild run bank and Syria is one more debt slave in the world?