• A third massacre is underway in Syria right now
    60 replies, posted
[QUOTE=faze;36293143]Yeah, because that worked out so well in Iraq, and Vietnam, and North Korea, and Cuba...should I continue?[/QUOTE] All knowing faze tell us what to do!
[QUOTE=darkedone02;36292182]I don't fucking care about the UN anymore, i say we just get on over there and start saving lifes and chopping off our foes heads left and right.[/QUOTE] Well, I think other methods of intervention should be considered before a direct military intervention, such as heavily supplying the opposition with weapons and other resources, and directing it to a coup d'etat, for example. That would be far less bloody and doesn't require that many people. It's the central government apparatus that should be destroyed and captured first. This could put the government under the opposition's control. A direct military intervention could end up killing far more people than the Syrian regime did.
[QUOTE=laxplayer77alt;36293199]All knowing faze tell us what to do![/QUOTE] Go ahead, say something useful to rebut.
[QUOTE=faze;36292030]Right now, the UN are the real criminals.[/QUOTE] Hi uninformed person The UN wont get involved because Russia and China wont let them. Every vote that involves getting involved gets shot down by both of them. If you want to blame someone, you got two countries to blame.
[QUOTE=faze;36293143]Yeah, because that worked out so well in Iraq, and Vietnam, and North Korea, and Cuba...should I continue?[/QUOTE] Governments of North Korea and Vietnam weren't overthrown, Iraq's government is definitely better now than it was under Sadam.
[QUOTE=Pig;36293445]Governments of North Korea and Vietnam weren't overthrown, Iraq's government is definitely better now than it was under Sadam.[/QUOTE] With all the bombings and shootings? Seems like Saddam had it more under control.
[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36293028]With the Syrian government being in the spotlight of a revolution, why on earth would anyone actually believe the Syrian government's claim that it's nothing more than "foreign-backed armed terrorist gangs"? (Not necessarily directed at OP, just stating that generally)[/QUOTE] Because the opposition aren't some ultimate paragons of good, and they are getting backing from foreign countries. Don't you remember that militia groups of the opposition in Libya had no problem persecuting, torturing, even killing Black Libyans because they thought they were in cahoots with Gaddafi? The opposition in Syria isn't one unified group and it'd be daft to say some aren't holding religious or racial hates that they could act on. In that sense it's possible to believe that, and that they could do or have done false-flags themselves. Not to say any good of Assad, the guy's a dick. [QUOTE=faze;36293457]With all the bombings and shootings? Seems like Saddam had it more under control.[/QUOTE] And people could get medical care, eat, go to school. But no, we had to bomb the fucking place because... wait, why did we bomb it again? Oh yeah, freedom. We're going to show them freedom by bombing them back to democracy and make them appreciate DEMOCRACY.
[QUOTE=Florence;36293527] And people could get medical care, eat, go to school. But no, we had to bomb the fucking place because... wait, why did we bomb it again? Oh yeah, freedom. We're going to show them freedom by bombing them back to democracy and make them appreciate DEMOCRACY.[/QUOTE] We bombed them because of uhh... WMD's? The ones we never found? Oh yeah, we bombed them so Bush could finish daddy's work. Now, they're worse off than before. Not to mention, they hate us 10 times more.
If you haven't read it already (I doubt many of you have), I suggest you read the published work entitled [I]The Other Side of Peacekeeping: Peace Enforcement and Who Should do it?[/I], by George F. Oliver, a Colonel in the USAF. A link to the paper is [URL="http://www.internationalpeacekeeping.org/pdf/04.pdf"]here[/URL]. It details, especially on Page 16, the conditions for peace keeping operations versus peace enforcement, and whether they should be led by a "robust UN force" or by a "coalition of the willing" or a "lead-nation". I'll leave the article for you to read, but in essence it states that if the size and capability of the parties involved in the fighting, as well as risk peacekeepers is high, and the consent level of parties for intervention is low, an interventionist force led by said coalition or lead-state would be effective. In Syria's situation, they have a well-trained, large army with many defenses, and a low consent level for foreign intervention. With this, it would or could warrant a peace enforcement mission by a "coalition of willing states" - namely NATO. In the current global situation, peace enforcement missions are mainly enacted through Security Council action (refer to pg. 14 of the Oliver's paper), which is a very slow and arduous process as we know. Therefore, completely bypassing the United Nations and commencing a peace enforcement operation through an organization or "coalition of willing states" such as NATO may come to be the best option. Suffice to say, of course, that once the conflict has been neutralized (ie. al-Assad's forces are diminished to the point that the conflict ends) a peacekeeping mission may be brought in to monitor the peace. I feel that I should elaborate further on this, but this is just my two cents.
-snip wrong thread, too many tabs open-
[quote]Syrian state media has been reporting that rebels are going to carry out a massacre in the town of Haffa, in Latakia province.[/quote] Wait, what?
[QUOTE=faze;36293457]With all the bombings and shootings? Seems like Saddam had it more under control.[/QUOTE] He gassed Kurds and oppressed the Shia majority, there was no less death even during his rule
Lybia all over again
I would be willing to deploy to help these people out. This has gone on long enough.
[QUOTE=Pig;36293445]Governments of North Korea and Vietnam weren't overthrown, Iraq's government is definitely better now than it was under Sadam.[/QUOTE] Sadam kept the peace, pretty much had equal rights, and had running water and electricity to a good number of cities compared to now. Now that the government that gave the people that is gone and dismantled, look at what they have now, infighting, destruction, fear and no effective assistance. [QUOTE=Charybdis;36293924]He gassed Kurds and oppressed the Shia majority, there was no less death even during his rule[/QUOTE] He hit them hard with munitions we provided and kept extremists from causing problems, he kept the region stable and those uninvolved for the most part safe. If anyone is wondering the cities hit were supposedly hit by Iran, which was commonly accepted until recently, I was referring mostly to his use of gas in war-zones and conflict.
*sigh* Give them some stingers and SMAW's. Assuming we don't give them particularly fun rounds, the SMAW system isn't any more dangerous than a bunch of RPG's already out there. The rounds will be much harder to find too, so if they are ever used against us, it will be very rarely. Stingers are a problem, but whatever. They only need a few. With point air defense and the ability to neutralize armored vehicles, the massive capability gap would be somewhat lessened.
[QUOTE=faze;36293557]We bombed them because of uhh... WMD's? The ones we never found? Oh yeah, we bombed them so Bush could finish daddy's work. Now, they're worse off than before. Not to mention, they hate us 10 times more.[/QUOTE] [quote]According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq[/url] Why don't you research your statements before senselessly bashing the U.S.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;36295415][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq[/url] Why don't you research your statements before senselessly bashing the U.S.[/QUOTE] Dude, Bush said it himself. We invaded because of "WMD's."
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36292994]Invade, flatten government, set up new government. Anything's better than these assholes, even a "puppet" government.[/QUOTE] We've attempted that 15 times, but America gets all excited and wants colonies, so they pass it off as just a fanclub opening and starts spending 10 years shitting all over their own population to have a middle-eastern clone who gets all depressed and has major identity disorders afterwards. Then shit starts to blow up in America again... [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;36295415][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq[/url] Why don't you research your statements before senselessly bashing the U.S.[/QUOTE] Hick...
[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36293028]With the Syrian government being in the spotlight of a revolution, why on earth would anyone actually believe the Syrian government's claim that it's nothing more than "foreign-backed armed terrorist gangs"? (Not necessarily directed at OP, just stating that generally)[/QUOTE] I was saying, it seemed like the massacres were being done by groups of soldiers who went batshit and decided to slaughter people but it now seems it may be an actual strategy ordered by army leaders
[QUOTE=faze;36292665]...and ground troops? Can't take them all out with UAV's.[/QUOTE] No, but we have enough to seriously fuck up their vehicles and aircraft.
[QUOTE=faze;36299652]Dude, Bush said it himself. We invaded because of "WMD's."[/QUOTE] Oh, okay, so I guess what one guy says moots everything! Whatever good guy Saddam did never happened because Big Bad Bush attacked his poor little army that didn't do anything wrong. GG faze, your title makes sense.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36302405]GG faze, your title makes sense.[/QUOTE] All my bestowed titles make sense.
[QUOTE=Political Gamer;36292633]And the few counties that still support Syria would be pissed as hell.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, can't always please everyone. They should take action even if means Russia and China throw a hissy fit. It's desperately needed.
[QUOTE=Pig;36293445]Governments of [B]North Korea[/B] and Vietnam [B]weren't overthrown.[/B][/QUOTE] Homework for today: read shit. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War[/URL] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea[/url] and a little bit of [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung[/url] The current korean government is a puppet one. Put there by the Kremlin. [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Orkel;36313398]Unfortunately, can't always please everyone. They should take action even if means Russia and China throw a hissy fit. It's desperately needed.[/QUOTE] Let's tell China to fuck off, best idea ever. Its not like the world economy is dependent of the Chinese economy [B]at all.[/B]
It's ok guys if we point at them and call them war criminals repeatedly, everything's going to be alright.
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36292637]US in Iraq, Afghanistan, soon Iran and Syria. Western corporate expansion for mineral resources are under way.[/QUOTE] yes we'll slaughter the syrian civilians and steal the precious tiberium they keep stashed underneath their floorboards just like we're doing in the middle east right now
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36292637]US in Iraq, Afghanistan, soon Iran and Syria. Western corporate expansion for mineral resources are under way.[/QUOTE] Do you know absolutely nothing about what's going on in Syria or are you just making these remarks for kicks?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.