Syria: An Escalating War

[STEALTHy]

Now as many of you know there is a war in Syria that is taking place. Last I heard yesterday 93,000 people have died in Syria. That is both SAA (Syrian Arab Army, FSA (Free Syrian Army), and civilians alike. The war has been waging 2 years now and Russia is providing Bashar al-Assad with weapons. As well Iran is providing their own troops and weapons. Due to this among other things. The United States is now not only providing the FSA with just supplies, but now they are providing equipment. Such as nightvision, weaponry, ammunition, vehicles, etc. It is said that Assad has launched chemical attacks. However the chemical strikes is all speculation at the moment. My questions to all you reading this today is.

Which side do you believe in more?: FSA or SAA
Why do believe in that side?:
What do you think the US should do about Syria?:

For me I'll answer some of it right now.

Which side do you believe in most?: Well I am more on the side of the FSA, however suspecting how things have gone in the past. All sides are surely against and will be against the USA, due to its support of Israel. (But that's a topic for another time)

Why do I believe in that side?: Well from my perspective it seems like they're fighting for a reason as well I see the SAA do far more terrible things than the FSA. But that cannot be confirmed, due to groups like Al-Qaeda being apart of the conflict on the FSA side.

What do I think the US should do about Syria?: In my opinion I believe they should just let the war unfold as it does. Just contain the situation in Syria only and if chemical weapons are at threat of being used or stolen. Then send in the forces to simply obtain such weapons and let them continue going at it.

[Harry Smith]

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181772

[Stronk Serb]

Who do I support? The SAA.
Why do I support them? Because better to be ruled by an iron fist. See what happened in Lybia? A million little factions emerged. Al-Qaeda is supporting the FSA, another reason fot the US to go against them.

What should the US do? Nothing. Let it go. To help the war end faster, help Assad. There is no 100% concrete evidence that both sides are using chemical weapons.

[Harry Smith]

Who do I support? The SAA.
Why do I support them? Because better to be ruled by an iron fist. See what happened in Lybia? A million little factions emerged. Al-Qaeda is supporting the FSA, another reason fot the US to go against them.

What should the US do? Nothing. Let it go. To help the war end faster, help Assad. There is no 100% concrete evidence that both sides are using chemical weapons.

Nope that will look very bad due to the fact there is now solid evidence of chemical weapons, I agree that no arms should be given to the rebels. They need to get a peace conference on the table to sort out the mess

[Stronk Serb]

Nope that will look very bad due to the fact there is now solid evidence of chemical weapons, I agree that no arms should be given to the rebels. They need to get a peace conference on the table to sort out the mess


Both sides probably used them. But some people must only be ruled by an iron fist to make socioeconomical process. I would rather go for Assad then the rebels. If there was a better third solution, yeah better that then Assad, but there is not. It should be solved with minimal loss of life, on that I agree.

[Harry Smith]

Both sides probably used them. But some people must only be ruled by an iron fist to make socioeconomical process. I would rather go for Assad then the rebels. If there was a better third solution, yeah better that then Assad, but there is not. It should be solved with minimal loss of life, on that I agree.

To be honest it's not the fact that he's a dictator, if we remove him on that basis then we should go and do it to every other dictatorship otherwise it's double standard, but the chemical weapons tarnish will be hard for him to shake, he'll have to go to the Hague in order to be tried for war crimes

[britishboy]

the rebels could take power when you think about it, they have the public support and will listen to the UN as its assad not doing this that theyre fighting for

[Southside]

Nope that will look very bad due to the fact there is now solid evidence of chemical weapons, I agree that no arms should be given to the rebels. They need to get a peace conference on the table to sort out the mess

Weapons have already been given to the rebels, just because BBC or Sky News is reporting on it doesnt mean it didnt happen. Ive seen videos of rebels rolling around with M16's, M4's, MP5's, how'd they get those? Assad doesnt have any of those laying around in armories. Peace conference would have been a good option about 2 years ago, now its long past the peace stage. Either Assad gets assassinated or something of that nature, or the Assad army overpowers the rebels, either of which is highly unlikely.

The thing I'm scared about is, if Assad falls, whos going to take over the country? Sure, you got the Syrian National Council but they are pretty shady. It's going to become another Libya..

[Azunite]

May I remind you people that the US is also giving weapons to Syria, only not publicly announcing them.

[Harry Smith]

Weapons have already been given to the rebels, just because BBC or Sky News is reporting on it doesnt mean it didnt happen. Ive seen videos of rebels rolling around with M16's, M4's, MP5's, how'd they get those? Assad doesnt have any of those laying around in armories. Peace conference would have been a good option about 2 years ago, now its long past the peace stage. Either Assad gets assassinated or something of that nature, or the Assad army overpowers the rebels, either of which is highly unlikely.

The thing I'm scared about is, if Assad falls, whos going to take over the country? Sure, you got the Syrian National Council but they are pretty shady. It's going to become another Libya..

I'm talking about the US or UK giving arms to the rebels, that shouldn't happen. The M16's are mainly from the arab states.

You can't just give up on the region because it's over due to have peace, we have to do something. Millions of children are dying from it

[TheBigUnit]

for me personally, im neutral and if i was president i wouldnt stick my nose there, theres no "good" side, no side worth helping

[Southside]

I'm talking about the US or UK giving arms to the rebels, that shouldn't happen. The M16's are mainly from the arab states.

You can't just give up on the region because it's over due to have peace, we have to do something. Millions of children are dying from it

Western Nations have gave too, it's videos of rebels admitting they received training from US military personnel in Jordan. Both sides have blood on their hands, like shane said, its no good side. It truly is a big mess. Even though I am strongly against going in and bombing a country, thats one of the last options in my opinion.

[britishboy]

Western Nations have gave too, it's videos of rebels admitting they received training from US military personnel in Jordan. Both sides have blood on their hands, like shane said, its no good side. It truly is a big mess. Even though I am strongly against going in and bombing a country, thats one of the last options in my opinion.

no just no. bombing is not needed

[Harry Smith]

Western Nations have gave too, it's videos of rebels admitting they received training from US military personnel in Jordan. Both sides have blood on their hands, like shane said, its no good side. It truly is a big mess. Even though I am strongly against going in and bombing a country, thats one of the last options in my opinion.

I never denied that the West trained them did I? I said that the west haven't been providing them with weapons, you could sent in the SAS and if they were facing a tank with an AK-47 they wouldn't have much of chance. And your right, both sides are pretty bad, you had a rebel leader eating a dead soldiers heart

[Stronk Serb]

the rebels could take power when you think about it, they have the public support and will listen to the UN as its assad not doing this that theyre fighting for

They will not listen to the UN. The Al-Qaeda has influence among rebels.

[Walter Powers]

Now as many of you know there is a war in Syria that is taking place. Last I heard yesterday 93,000 people have died in Syria. That is both SAA (Syrian Arab Army, FSA (Free Syrian Army), and civilians alike. The war has been waging 2 years now and Russia is providing Bashar al-Assad with weapons. As well Iran is providing their own troops and weapons. Due to this among other things. The United States is now not only providing the FSA with just supplies, but now they are providing equipment. Such as nightvision, weaponry, ammunition, vehicles, etc. It is said that Assad has launched chemical attacks. However the chemical strikes is all speculation at the moment. My questions to all you reading this today is.

Which side do you believe in more?: FSA or SAA
Why do believe in that side?:
What do you think the US should do about Syria?:

For me I'll answer some of it right now.

Which side do you believe in most?: Well I am more on the side of the FSA, however suspecting how things have gone in the past. All sides are surely against and will be against the USA, due to its support of Israel. (But that's a topic for another time)

Why do I believe in that side?: Well from my perspective it seems like they're fighting for a reason as well I see the SAA do far more terrible things than the FSA. But that cannot be confirmed, due to groups like Al-Qaeda being apart of the conflict on the FSA side.

What do I think the US should do about Syria?: In my opinion I believe they should just let the war unfold as it does. Just contain the situation in Syria only and if chemical weapons are at threat of being used or stolen. Then send in the forces to simply obtain such weapons and let them continue going at it.

What do you mean you're against the USA because of it's support for Israel? What would you prefer, we support Islamic extremism? That's a pretty radical opinion. Are you American?

[britishboy]

They will not listen to the UN. The Al-Qaeda has influence among rebels.

well of course remove them

[Harry Smith]

well of course remove them

much easier said that done

[britishboy]

much easier said that done

that is true but maybe closely monitor the government? and im sure soon enough they will be found?

[Walter Powers]

Nope that will look very bad due to the fact there is now solid evidence of chemical weapons, I agree that no arms should be given to the rebels. They need to get a peace conference on the table to sort out the mess

99% evidence is good enough. I don't think we should take sides in this matter, neccasirilly; I just think we should bring in the world's most powerful army and kill whoever WE see is doing bad things. I'm not sure about the government, but I know there are both good and bad people in the rebel army. We can't just take a side and give them guns. We have to bring our military in their.

I'd be very surprised if President Obama did that, though. As we saw in Benghazi, he has trouble acknowledging their is still evil in the world.

[Harry Smith]

that is true but maybe closely monitor the government? and im sure soon enough they will be found?

We have no right to stop a democratically elected Islamic government taking power, AL Queda could be in charge but we have no right to stop them after Assad gets kicked out

[britishboy]

99% evidence is good enough. I don't think we should take sides in this matter, neccasirilly; I just think we should bring in the world's most powerful army and kill whoever WE see is doing bad things. I'm not sure about the government, but I know there are both good and bad people in the rebel army. We can't just take a side and give them guns. We have to bring our military in their.

I'd be very surprised if President Obama did that, though. As we saw in Benghazi, he has trouble acknowledging their is still evil in the world.

agreed

We have no right to stop a democratically elected Islamic government taking power, AL Queda could be in charge but we have no right to stop them after Assad gets kicked out

we do actually


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Harry Smith]

we do actually

No we don't, it's against international law on some many levels. You can't invade a country just because it's anti-western, that's a war crime

[Walter Powers]

We have no right to stop a democratically elected Islamic government taking power, AL Queda could be in charge but we have no right to stop them after Assad gets kicked out

Just because a single party was "democratically elected" for eternity in a likely fraudulent election doesn't give them the authority to run a theocracy. NOBODY desearves to live a theocracy. NOBODY desearves to be attacked by their own government without trial.

[Walter Powers]

No we don't, it's against international law on some many levels. You can't invade a country just because it's anti-western, that's a war crime

If it's such a great place for the people living there, why don't you move to Syria? I'm sure they treat homosexuals very well in these Islamic theocracies.

[Harry Smith]

If it's such a great place for the people living there, why don't you move to Syria? I'm sure they treat homosexuals very well in these Islamic theocracies.

haha great bring my sexuality into it.

I'm talking about a future potentially Islamic Syria... you can't just invade a country, I hate dictatorship, I absolutely hate it but you can't bypass international law because of it.

[Walter Powers]

haha great bring my sexuality into it.

I'm talking about a future potentially Islamic Syria... you can't just invade a country, I hate dictatorship, I absolutely hate it but you can't bypass international law because of it.

What international law? We are the United States of America, the world's superpower, for Pete's sake! And we'd have you brits and likely most of the EU on board. Do you honestly think somebody will attack us because we violate "international policy? NO! They'd be crazy! Heck, we let North Korea, a fairly weak country, violate loads of international law.

[Walter Powers]

haha great bring my sexuality into it.

I'm talking about a future potentially Islamic Syria... you can't just invade a country, I hate dictatorship, I absolutely hate it but you can't bypass international law because of it.

And you're the one who's broadcasting your sexuality in your signature!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I think support might be too strong a word in this case, but I think the most favorable outcome for the West is Assad's victory. Even though we condemn him for what he's doing, the alternative would be a lot worse. Many of the rebels are also Al-Qaeda operatives, and if Assad's regime were to fall, they'd eventually get control of the country. Just look at what happened in Lybia. We helped them bring down the man who was killing them, and how did they repay us? By attacking our embassies and consulates. Except the Syria situation would be much worse, thanks to Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles.

Also, we should keep our noses out of this. Just let the whole thing sort itself out. If we're supplying the rebels with weapons, our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq might be attacked with those guns. And we shouldn't even be thinking about invading. What did we gain by invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Nothing. Thousands of soldiers lost their lives, and that still didn't change anything. If we invade Syria and and neutralize Assad, I doubt the new government will thank us for it.

If we want to help, we can do it through diplomatic means. Keep the war from spilling over and destabilizing the region while we negotiate with both sides.

[britishboy]

No we don't, it's against international law on some many levels. You can't invade a country just because it's anti-western, that's a war crime

btw these are the same people who hang gays and stone women? we cant allow that to happen

[Walter Powers]

btw these are the same people who hang gays and stone women? we cant allow that to happen

Exactly.

[Walter Powers]

I think support might be too strong a word in this case, but I think the most favorable outcome for the West is Assad's victory. Even though we condemn him for what he's doing, the alternative would be a lot worse. Many of the rebels are also Al-Qaeda operatives, and if Assad's regime were to fall, they'd eventually get control of the country. Just look at what happened in Lybia. We helped them bring down the man who was killing them, and how did they repay us? By attacking our embassies and consulates. Except the Syria situation would be much worse, thanks to Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles.

Also, we should keep our noses out of this. Just let the whole thing sort itself out. If we're supplying the rebels with weapons, our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq might be attacked with those guns. And we shouldn't even be thinking about invading. What did we gain by invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Nothing. Thousands of soldiers lost their lives, and that still didn't change anything. If we invade Syria and and neutralize Assad, I doubt the new government will thank us for it.

If we want to help, we can do it through diplomatic means. Keep the war from spilling over and destabilizing the region while we negotiate with both sides.

How can you say we gained nothing from Afghanistan? We greatly reduced Al Qaeda's power globally there. I know that most of us on here were mere toddlers on September 11, 2001, but I still remember my parents look of horror watching the TV that day. And I remember my dad crying over the friend he lost in the Pentagon, who thought he worked in the safest place on Earth. He was wrong.

[Harry Smith]

What international law? We are the United States of America, the world's superpower, for Pete's sake! And we'd have you brits and likely most of the EU on board. Do you honestly think somebody will attack us because we violate "international policy? NO! They'd be crazy! Heck, we let North Korea, a fairly weak country, violate loads of international law.

Wow, typical Yankee attitude. It would be a breach of peace, you would be charged with charging a war of aggression if you attack with no reason. You don't let North korea get away, they have embargos passed against them for minor offences. If you invaded for regime change that's immoral, you have no right to decide another countries leadership

And you're the one who's broadcasting your sexuality in your signature!

Sorry...

btw these are the same people who hang gays and stone women? we cant allow that to happen

I agree, we should pressure them to change but we can't invade them on the basis of domestic reform, by that theory they could invade us for having laws that they don't agree with couldn't they?

You can't send in British troops into a muslim country to make them change there culture, it would cost millions and British lives would be lost

International law in designed to help prevent preemptive warfare, article 51 allows self defense but that's it.

[Walter Powers]

Wow, typical Yankee attitude. It would be a breach of peace, you would be charged with charging a war of aggression if you attack with no reason. You don't let North korea get away, they have embargos passed against them for minor offences. If you invaded for regime change that's immoral, you have no right to decide another countries leadership



Sorry...



I agree, we should pressure them to change but we can't invade them on the basis of domestic reform, by that theory they could invade us for having laws that they don't agree with couldn't they?

You can't send in British troops into a muslim country to make them change there culture, it would cost millions and British lives would be lost

International law in designed to help prevent preemptive warfare, article 51 allows self defense but that's it.

Article 51 of what? And who's going to charge the United States with "charging a war of aggression"? The UN Security Council? That seems highly unlikely, given that the US, as a permanant member, can veto any action taken by them.

And you keep saying that the people of that country should get to choose their leadership. Fine. So let's implement a constitution like the American one that gives them that right while protecting the rights of the minorities in that country.

[Harry Smith]

Article 51 of what? And who's going to charge the United States with "charging a war of aggression"? The UN Security Council? That seems highly unlikely, given that the US, as a permanant member, can veto any action taken by them.

And you keep saying that the people of that country should get to choose their leadership. Fine. So let's implement a constitution like the American one that gives them that right while protecting the rights of the minorities in that country.

Article 51 of the charter of the united Nations, the UN security council deals with the defense aspect. The Hague would deal with that in the same way that Nuremberg did in 1948.

Oh yeah I forget how great the US constitution was?

All men are created Equal... who wants a slave?

[Origami]

Article 51 of what? And who's going to charge the United States with "charging a war of aggression"? The UN Security Council? That seems highly unlikely, given that the US, as a permanant member, can veto any action taken by them.

Hold up. You actually think America can't be charged with war crimes? You actually think as a "permanent member" they can't kick us out? I promise you, if America overstepped it's bounds too many times, we'd receive a backlash that not even our military might could withstand.

[Walter Powers]

Hold up. You actually think America can't be charged with war crimes? You actually think as a "permanent member" they can't kick us out? I promise you, if America overstepped it's bounds too many times, we'd receive a backlash that not even our military might could withstand.

Of course if we committed genocide they could do it. But for something like this, when we're trying to PREVENT mass murder, that'd never happen. Especially with the backing of Europe.

[Walter Powers]

Article 51 of the charter of the united Nations, the UN security council deals with the defense aspect. The Hague would deal with that in the same way that Nuremberg did in 1948.

Oh yeah I forget how great the US constitution was?

All men are created Equal... who wants a slave?

The US constitution gurantees the rights of people regardless of creed, race, gender, or political beliefs.

[Origami]

Of course if we committed genocide they could do it. But for something like this, when we're trying to PREVENT mass murder, that'd never happen. Especially with the backing of Europe.

Overstepping your bounds is overstepping your bounds. Laws are laws. You don't justify breaking a law.

[Harry Smith]

Of course if we committed genocide they could do it. But for something like this, when we're trying to PREVENT mass murder, that'd never happen. Especially with the backing of Europe.

If they had evidence of a GENOCIDE (not mass murder but ethnic cleansing) then the US would have to go to the security council and get a resolution passed allowling force to be used. You can't simply invade without due process, that's a breach of peace and Obama would be firstly impeached and then sent to the hague

The US constitution gurantees the rights of people regardless of creed, race, gender, or political beliefs.

Then how come black slaves were being sold on the steps outside of the building where the constitution was signed? How come you waited about 50 years until after Europe to abolish slavery? How come you segregated your own citizens and deported communists

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

How can you say we gained nothing from Afghanistan? We greatly reduced Al Qaeda's power globally there. I know that most of us on here were mere toddlers on September 11, 2001, but I still remember my parents look of horror watching the TV that day. And I remember my dad crying over the friend he lost in the Pentagon, who thought he worked in the safest place on Earth. He was wrong.

Our invasion force killed plenty of Al-Qaeda members, true, but our invasion made even Iraqis and Afghans join them in the fight against the West.

[britishboy]

Our invasion force killed plenty of Al-Qaeda members, true, but our invasion made even Iraqis and Afghans join them in the fight against the West.

but we also trained there army and police force and 9/11 had to face consequences

[Harry Smith]

but we also trained there army and police force and 9/11 had to face consequences

Iraq wasn't related to 9/11 at all, do you think they would be grateful that we're training there police. Would you feel grateful if Iraq invaded us and then yay they trained there police. Forget the fact that they burnt down your farm and took your brother hostage at least they train our police

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

but we also trained there army and police force and 9/11 had to face consequences

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/AirborneAndSpecialForcesUdayQusayRaid.jpg
And we also did that.

But, sure, training their police totally makes up for it. /sarcasm

There's no silver lining for them. In the eyes of the Iraqis and Afghans, we're foreign warmongers who came there and ruined their lives.

Also, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We invaded because, allegedly, Saddam had WMDs. He didn't. But we still stayed there for 5 more years after finding that out. Why? To make sure the oil kept flowing.

[Stronk Serb]

99% evidence is good enough. I don't think we should take sides in this matter, neccasirilly; I just think we should bring in the world's most powerful army and kill whoever WE see is doing bad things. I'm not sure about the government, but I know there are both good and bad people in the rebel army. We can't just take a side and give them guns. We have to bring our military in their.

I'd be very surprised if President Obama did that, though. As we saw in Benghazi, he has trouble acknowledging their is still evil in the world.


That is state integrity violation. You cannot move in armies like that. They would be compelled to do as you see fit. That is oppression. Better sponsor peace talks and demand them.

[britishboy]

were getting rid of terrorism and training police so when we leave terrorism wont take over again

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

were getting rid of terrorism and training police so when we leave terrorism wont take over again

If Al-Qaeda's membership didn't increase the whole time we were fighting the War on Terror, it'd be long gone now. Our presence there inspires even more people to take a gun in their hand and fight against us. We're not stopping it. We're causing it to grow.

Have you ever heard of The American Revolution? Well, basically, your King George though he could solve the unrest by sending more Redcoats to Boston and New York. It only made things worse. The same thing is happening in the Middle East, but on smaller levels.

[britishboy]

If Al-Qaeda's membership didn't increase the whole time we were fighting the War on Terror, it'd be long gone now. Our presence there inspires even more people to take a gun in their hand and fight against us. We're not stopping it. We're causing it to grow.

Have you ever heard of The American Revolution? Well, basically, your King George though he could solve the unrest by sending more Redcoats to Boston and New York. It only made things worse. The same thing is happening in the Middle East, but on smaller levels.

and thats why we must be replaced with their own police

[Stronk Serb]

were getting rid of terrorism and training police so when we leave terrorism wont take over again

Not really. It is just growing and growing and growing.

If Al-Qaeda's membership didn't increase the whole time we were fighting the War on Terror, it'd be long gone now. Our presence there inspires even more people to take a gun in their hand and fight against us. We're not stopping it. We're causing it to grow.

Have you ever heard of The American Revolution? Well, basically, your King George though he could solve the unrest by sending more Redcoats to Boston and New York. It only made things worse. The same thing is happening in the Middle East, but on smaller levels.

Didn't the Redcoats start to make massive civillian executions? If that happened to, let's say, my cousin, yeagh I would join the rebellion. Same thing is going on for Al-Qaeda now.

[Stronk Serb]

and thats why we must be replaced with their own police

That did not make any sense. If they get replaced, terrorist attacks will just increase due to corruption, blackmailing and defection. More Middle Eastern civillians died then during 9/11. That is terror, by you.

[Walter Powers]

Our invasion force killed plenty of Al-Qaeda members, true, but our invasion made even Iraqis and Afghans join them in the fight against the West.

It also gained support for the west, though, too. And I imagine it's agood thing for us now that we know those people's true colors.

[britishboy]

That did not make any sense. If they get replaced, terrorist attacks will just increase due to corruption, blackmailing and defection. More Middle Eastern civillians died then during 9/11. That is terror, by you.

it should calm down because theres no 'foreign invader'

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

it should calm down because theres no 'foreign invader'

It won't. People tend to remember the people that bombed and invaded their country.


Didn't the Redcoats start to make massive civilian executions? If that happened to, let's say, my cousin, yeah I would join the rebellion. Same thing is going on for Al-Qaeda now.

Exactly. What we're doing to them is more or less the same thing that the British did to us.

It also gained support for the west, though, too. And I imagine it's agood thing for us now that we know those people's true colors.

I honestly don't see how invading a country will make it's citizens support us. And clear this up for me: You're saying that the invasion was worth it cause now we know they don't like us? Our relations with the Middle East have been strained since Desert Storm. .

[STEALTHy]

What do you mean you're against the USA because of it's support for Israel? What would you prefer, we support Islamic extremism? That's a pretty radical opinion. Are you American?
Where in that did I ever say I didn't support Israel. Also I don't really support any of these groups in Syria. Because it is just going to end up being like Afghanistan during when the Soviets we're there.

[STEALTHy]

That did not make any sense. If they get replaced, terrorist attacks will just increase due to corruption, blackmailing and defection. More Middle Eastern civillians died then during 9/11. That is terror, by you.
"More Middle Eastern civillians died then during 9/11." That statement is false, did you do research for the actual numbers of it? However everything else you said was spot on.

[MisterSix]

Which side do you believe in more?:
Syrian Arab Army

Why do believe in that side?:
They don't film themselves killing civilians, dismembering bodies and training child soldiers while screaming "Allāhu Akbar"

What do you think the US should do about Syria?:
They should go all or nothing.
I think its wrong to give more supplies than you can imagine to shady group like the FSA and then let them loose on Syria without supervision.
They should send a half decent amount of troops with those supplies to make sure they aren't being used against civilians or given to other terrorist/rebel outfits

[Walter Powers]

Where in that did I ever say I didn't support Israel. Also I don't really support any of these groups in Syria. Because it is just going to end up being like Afghanistan during when the Soviets we're there.

Woops, your right, you never said that. My apoligies :) I was sleepy when I was reading your post earlier.

[Walter Powers]

It won't. People tend to remember the people that bombed and invaded their country.



Exactly. What we're doing to them is more or less the same thing that the British did to us.



I honestly don't see how invading a country will make it's citizens support us. And clear this up for me: You're saying that the invasion was worth it cause now we know they don't like us? Our relations with the Middle East have been strained since Desert Storm. .

You don't realize that when our military "invades", we do it often at least partially for humanitarian purposes. This is one of the money things that makes our country exceptional. We help people. We feed abused citizens, and free them from their masters. We save children. We give girls the same rights as boys. I've seen videos ; They and they're parents are truly grateful for our military. For them, we've certainly gained their support.

[Stronk Serb]

"More Middle Eastern civillians died then during 9/11." That statement is false, did you do research for the actual numbers of it? However everything else you said was spot on.

Wow. Approximately 3,000 died during 9/11. More then 100,000 civilians (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) died just in Iraq alone. They are still unsure about the exact numbers, but tthey have recovered more then 100,000 bodies.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

You don't realize that when our military "invades", we do it often at least partially for humanitarian purposes. This is one of the money things that makes our country exceptional. We help people. We feed abused citizens, and free them from their masters. We save children. We give girls the same rights as boys. I've seen videos ; They and they're parents are truly grateful for our military. For them, we've certainly gained their support.

Do you honestly think our involvement changed anything? So, we were supposedly there to help with the rights of women and children, all the while killing their husbands and fathers? Their " masters " were their husbands. Afghanistan is a deeply patriarchal society, and also an Islamic state. Women following men is part of their culture. Muslim women are also expected to follow Islamic morality. They're not going to thank you for killing their husbands.

The girls we try to help end up with a bullet in their head or acid on their face. Again, that's Afghan culture. You can't change something that's been like that for thousands of years.

We feed them because we've burned their farms and bombed their markets. We feed them because it would be bad PR for both the US and ISAF if there was famine in Afghanistan.

And in the end, we've changed nothing. Things will go back tot he way they were before we invaded. Karzai will either become a Taliban pawn or be removed from power.

No one in their right mind can say a war was for the good of anyone's citizens. Thousands of people were killed during 9/11, but ten times more have died in Afghanistan since we started the war.

[Southside]

If Al-Qaeda's membership didn't increase the whole time we were fighting the War on Terror, it'd be long gone now. Our presence there inspires even more people to take a gun in their hand and fight against us. We're not stopping it. We're causing it to grow.

Have you ever heard of The American Revolution? Well, basically, your King George though he could solve the unrest by sending more Redcoats to Boston and New York. It only made things worse. The same thing is happening in the Middle East, but on smaller levels.

Exactly, people need to start putting themselves in the shoes of these Middle-Eastern people. They see their homeland being bombed by foriegn invaders and see their fellow countrymen killed, they are going to want to retaliate. All these drone strikes are creating terrorism, not stopping it. They see their relatives and homes being bombed, you just created another terrorist.

[britishboy]

Exactly, people need to start putting themselves in the shoes of these Middle-Eastern people. They see their homeland being bombed by foriegn invaders and see their fellow countrymen killed, they are going to want to retaliate. All these drone strikes are creating terrorism, not stopping it. They see their relatives and homes being bombed, you just created another terrorist.

true but Afghanistan actually has women in its air force, what a change! and the Taliban that run the country, and everyone hated, are few in number

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

and the Taliban that run the country, and everyone hated, are few in number

Hardly.

Our drone strikes have driven them underground, forced them to resort to guerrilla warfare. You know the suicide bombings you hear about at least once a week? Those bombers are affiliated with the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, which is the Taliban's biggest ally.

[Walter Powers]

Do you honestly think our involvement changed anything? So, we were supposedly there to help with the rights of women and children, all the while killing their husbands and fathers? Their " masters " were their husbands. Afghanistan is a deeply patriarchal society, and also an Islamic state. Women following men is part of their culture. Muslim women are also expected to follow Islamic morality. They're not going to thank you for killing their husbands.

The girls we try to help end up with a bullet in their head or acid on their face. Again, that's Afghan culture. You can't change something that's been like that for thousands of years.

We feed them because we've burned their farms and bombed their markets. We feed them because it would be bad PR for both the US and ISAF if there was famine in Afghanistan.

And in the end, we've changed nothing. Things will go back tot he way they were before we invaded. Karzai will either become a Taliban pawn or be removed from power.

No one in their right mind can say a war was for the good of anyone's citizens. Thousands of people were killed during 9/11, but ten times more have died in Afghanistan since we started the war.


Okay, I've just got to tackle one point here...the Taliban have not been part of afghan culture for thousands of years! A few decades at most. I don't often defend Islamists, but come on, stoning women and hanging gays is not a part of their culture...if it was, they're wouldn't be anywhere near as much opposition to it. And that's the lamest excuse...it's part of their culture? They all aren't Islamic extremists, or at least that's what President Obama says.

[britishboy]

Hardly.

Our drone strikes have driven them underground, forced them to resort to guerrilla warfare. You know the suicide bombings you hear about at least once a week? Those bombers are affiliated with the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, which is the Taliban's biggest ally.

what on gods earth are you going on about? the taliban dont have bunkers, they cant go underground and im sure all the girls going to school with no acid on face and rocks being thrown at them are pretty happy

[Harry Smith]

true but Afghanistan actually has women in its air force, what a change! and the Taliban that run the country, and everyone hated, are few in number

Yet why do we hear about so many afgan policemen shooting our troops, the people who are traning them.

Also your wrong, the Taliban are not small in numbers, they've set up a political wing and have fought very well for the last 10 years.and we're going to start negotiating with them. That's pretty much means that they have won


what on gods earth are you going on about? the taliban dont have bunkers, they cant go underground and im sure all the girls going to school with no acid on face and rocks being thrown at them are pretty happy

They have a massive cave network on the same scale as the Vietcong in the 60's, they dominate the rural areas, look at the green zone. Our troops don't even go near out of fear.

Your really failing to understand the taliban. How would you feel if say Iran or Iraq came over here, occupied our country and told us that all our laws and rules were wrong and that we should embrace middle eastern values? You wouldn't be very happy

[britishboy]

Yet why do we hear about so many afgan policemen shooting our troops, the people who are traning them.

Also your wrong, the Taliban are not small in numbers, they've set up a political wing and have fought very well for the last 10 years.and we're going to start negotiating with them. That's pretty much means that they have won




They have a massive cave network on the same scale as the Vietcong in the 60's, they dominate the rural areas, look at the green zone. Our troops don't even go near out of fear.

Your really failing to understand the taliban. How would you feel if say Iran or Iraq came over here, occupied our country and told us that all our laws and rules were wrong and that we should embrace middle eastern values? You wouldn't be very happy

they do and the general public, I believe are against them, and im very much against the USA talking to them, its a joke we might as well say they won, and we have built up a police force, but yeah there were traitors in the ranks

[Harry Smith]

they do and the general public, I believe are against them, and im very much against the USA talking to them, its a joke we might as well say they won, and we have built up a police force, but yeah there were traitors in the ranks

If anything the general public support them. I mean look many farmers over there grow poppies which is wear opium comes from, we went over there and burned down these farms. This means the average farmer didn't get any money because of the British and American forces so they supported the Taliban. The current government is corrupt as fuck.

We haven't built up there police force, we've created an agency which is a joke. There is high amount of them simply abandoning there posts, supplying the Taliban with money or information or just simply being corrupt. It's just like how America funded the south Vietnam army and then the moment they left it collapsed.

We should of left it to the Americans to sort out

[britishboy]

If anything the general public support them. I mean look many farmers over there grow poppies which is wear opium comes from, we went over there and burned down these farms. This means the average farmer didn't get any money because of the British and American forces so they supported the Taliban. The current government is corrupt as fuck.

We haven't built up there police force, we've created an agency which is a joke. There is high amount of them simply abandoning there posts, supplying the Taliban with money or information or just simply being corrupt. It's just like how America funded the south Vietnam army and then the moment they left it collapsed.

We should of left it to the Americans to sort out

I see your anti war peace guy? and if we help our the americans, theyre more likely to help out us, were allies, you dont pick and choose

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Okay, I've just got to tackle one point here...the Taliban have not been part of afghan culture for thousands of years! A few decades at most. I don't often defend Islamists, but come on, stoning women and hanging gays is not a part of their culture...if it was, they're wouldn't be anywhere near as much opposition to it. And that's the lamest excuse...it's part of their culture? They all aren't Islamic extremists, or at least that's what President Obama says.

I never said the Taliban specifically were part of Afghan culture for thousands of years. Sharia Law is part of their culture. And that's what the Taliban were enforcing ever since they came to power.

what on gods earth are you going on about? the taliban dont have bunkers, they cant go underground and im sure all the girls going to school with no acid on face and rocks being thrown at them are pretty happy

When did I ever say bunkers? Living in bunkers is contrary to keeping a low profile, which is what the Taliban are trying to do. They have cave networks around the whole country, just like Harry said. Bin Laden was hiding in those caves for years, and we couldn't find him till he resurfaced again.

[Harry Smith]

I see your anti war peace guy? and if we help our the americans, theyre more likely to help out us, were allies, you dont pick and choose

No, I just know that life isn't black and white, If you listened to anything I say I've always favoured internationalism, I support Iraq, Sierra Leon and Bosnia because they all have benefited us in the long term but Afghanistan has been a massarce. Don't make assumptions.

The Americans choose and we do

Falklands
Suez
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kenya
Malaya

All wars were both side haven't been involved

[britishboy]

No, I just know that life isn't black and white, If you listened to anything I say I've always favoured internationalism, I support Iraq, Sierra Leon and Bosnia because they all have benefited us in the long term but Afghanistan has been a massarce. Don't make assumptions.

The Americans choose and we do

Falklands
Suez
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kenya
Malaya

All wars were both side haven't been involved

your confusing me? the falklands we recived no support from the USA, they called for peace

[britishboy]

No, I just know that life isn't black and white, If you listened to anything I say I've always favoured internationalism, I support Iraq, Sierra Leon and Bosnia because they all have benefited us in the long term but Afghanistan has been a massarce. Don't make assumptions.

The Americans choose and we do

Falklands
Suez
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kenya
Malaya

All wars were both side haven't been involved

your confusing me? the falklands we recived no support from the USA, they called for peace but your right things are complicated, especially war

[Harry Smith]

your confusing me? the falklands we recived no support from the USA, they called for peace

Exactly, why should we support the US blindly when they didn't even give a fuck that our sovereignty was under attack

[britishboy]

Exactly, why should we support the US blindly when they didn't even give a fuck that our sovereignty was under attack

yeah thats something that had pissed me off but we shown the world britian isnt useless:p its still better to be friends and we have a shared interest in most conflicts

[Walter Powers]

Exactly, why should we support the US blindly when they didn't even give a fuck that our sovereignty was under attack

The Falklands are a British colony. And given our past, I think America's official position is that it's not right to impose your laws on a territory far away where the majority of citizens don't support it. That's why we wouldn't help.

And, as much as you hate it, you kinda have to deal with us because of your economic ties with us and our status as world superpower.

If only you'd won the Revolution.

[Harry Smith]

The Falklands are a British colony. And given our past, I think America's official position is that it's not right to impose your laws on a territory far away where the majority of citizens don't support it. That's why we wouldn't help.

And, as much as you hate it, you kinda have to deal with us because of your economic ties with us and our status as world superpower.

If only you'd won the Revolution.

That's incorrect, the Falklands isn't a colony. They had a vote recently and only 3 people on the whole island voted to leave it, they have there own elected council we just provide defense and economic support, the people in the Falklands want to remain british

Also if your statement about america is so true then how come the US have overthrown so many democratic governments to bring in US friendly dictators such as Iran in 1953

[Walter Powers]

I never said the Taliban specifically were part of Afghan culture for thousands of years. Sharia Law is part of their culture. And that's what the Taliban were enforcing ever since they came to power.



When did I ever say bunkers? Living in bunkers is contrary to keeping a low profile, which is what the Taliban are trying to do. They have cave networks around the whole country, just like Harry said. Bin Laden was hiding in those caves for years, and we couldn't find him till he resurfaced again.

Sharia law hasn't been a part of they're culture for THAT long. And regardless, I'm pretty sure most of the women in that culture would appreciate more freedom. Being "part of their culture" is no excuse to deny a person their unalienable rights.

[Harry Smith]

Sharia law hasn't been a part of they're culture for THAT long. And regardless, I'm pretty sure most of the women in that culture would appreciate more freedom. Being "part of their culture" is no excuse to deny a person their unalienable rights.

That's true but we're not over there because of there civil rights, if that was the case then we would of been there 5 years earlier when the Taliban introduced these policies

[Southside]

No, I just know that life isn't black and white, If you listened to anything I say I've always favoured internationalism, I support Iraq, Sierra Leon and Bosnia because they all have benefited us in the long term but Afghanistan has been a massarce. Don't make assumptions.

The Americans choose and we do

Falklands
Suez
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kenya
Malaya

All wars were both side haven't been involved

Iraq benefited us? Other than oil, what has been the benefit of the Iraq campaign? The last LEGIT war the US has fought was the Gulf War(1991) and possible Afghanistan, I just think we should have been out of there by now. Panama was bullshit, I'm saying that as someone who is half Panamanian and who has heard eye witness accounts of the destruction and massacre that happened in the invasion.

[STEALTHy]

Wow. Approximately 3,000 died during 9/11. More then 100,000 civilians (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) died just in Iraq alone. They are still unsure about the exact numbers, but tthey have recovered more then 100,000 bodies.

Sorry I read that wrong thought it said something else. Last I checked in Iraq the death count is between 110,000-123,000 deaths in Iraq.

Yet why do we hear about so many afgan policemen shooting our troops, the people who are traning them.

Also your wrong, the Taliban are not small in numbers, they've set up a political wing and have fought very well for the last 10 years.and we're going to start negotiating with them. That's pretty much means that they have won




They have a massive cave network on the same scale as the Vietcong in the 60's, they dominate the rural areas, look at the green zone. Our troops don't even go near out of fear.

Your really failing to understand the taliban. How would you feel if say Iran or Iraq came over here, occupied our country and told us that all our laws and rules were wrong and that we should embrace middle eastern values? You wouldn't be very happy

Also the Afghan police forces who shoot our own troops are usually stoned on drugs or are apart of the Taliban. To counter this threat during training, a soldier always has his finger on the trigger when the Afghan forces have guns on them.

Well I don't think the people in Iraq or Afghanistan we're to happy anyway when they had the Taliban cutting of their heads and Saddam using chemicals weapons on his own people. I get your point though, as soon as we leave all we did is just going to go back to the way it was and it would have all been for nothing.

Also I could hardly say anybody has won the Afghanistan war, when thousands of soldiers and civilians alike have been killed by all sides. It doesn't really make a difference who wins, because we're gonna go in 2014.

Anyway I thought this was about Syria?

That's incorrect, the Falklands isn't a colony. They had a vote recently and only 3 people on the whole island voted to leave it, they have there own elected council we just provide defense and economic support, the people in the Falklands want to remain british

Also if your statement about america is so true then how come the US have overthrown so many democratic governments to bring in US friendly dictators such as Iran in 1953

People this is about current events not about something that has been solved. Listen the Iron Lady was a boss when she put your Royal Navy and Royal Marines on the Falklands to take back what the dictatorship of Argentina took. Now that we all have that settled lets get back to Syria.

-Multiple posts merged. -StoppingTime

[Harry Smith]

Iraq benefited us? Other than oil, what has been the benefit of the Iraq campaign? The last LEGIT war the US has fought was the Gulf War(1991) and possible Afghanistan, I just think we should have been out of there by now. Panama was bullshit, I'm saying that as someone who is half Panamanian and who has heard eye witness accounts of the destruction and massacre that happened in the invasion.

The 1991 war was supported by a collection of many countries and had the full approval of the UN, we couldn't let Iraq simply annex Kuwait and it's people, we have a right to protect the sovereignty of a country from a foreign enemy