BREAKING NEWS - UNITED STATES To Provide 'MILITARY SUPPORT' To Rebels - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027314]Didn't you just call Assad a necessary evil earlier?[/QUOTE] yeah. Dictators in the middle east seem to be a necessary evil most of the time otherwise we get to descend into tribal infighting and sectarian BS. Not that I support him.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027340]I can go on and on about why we shouldn't just supply weapons to whoever is against the person we don't like.[/QUOTE] This really isn't what is happening. The world cared very little about Assad before he started shooting and gassing his own people. The world just wants him to stop. Which he won't.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;41027289] We need to get a list of every single rebel commander on the ground, if they have any connection with AQ they get ejected immediately. The citizens of Syria need to choose between having US support or terrorist group support. Don't fucking arm another known terrorist organization again US.[/QUOTE] That seems impossible. The US government probably wouldn't be able to pick out the leaders who sympathize with terrorist groups, let alone enforce their demands on the rebels.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027314]Didn't you just call Assad a necessary evil earlier?[/QUOTE] He didn't? He used shitty vocabulary and said that necessary evils exist and no matter how bad they are, it's not the USA or the west's job to go in and depose people and hand the keys to the palace to whoever is nearest.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027365]He didn't?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aman;41027345]yeah. Dictators in the middle east seem to be a necessary evil most of the time otherwise we get to descend into tribal infighting and sectarian BS.[/QUOTE] you're more awkward arguing with than laserguided

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41025696]Now all we need is: "BREAKING NEWS - Russia to provide MILITARY support to Regime!" And the Proxy war is on.[/QUOTE] isn't this how the plot of metal gear solid 4 starts

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027362]This really isn't what is happening. The world cared very little for Assad before he started shooting and gassing his own people. The world just wants him to stop. Which he won't.[/QUOTE] It's a more complicated issue than that. In war, civilians die and are targeted. Massacres happen when suspicions are at all time highs and it sucks, but that's war. It's not all black and white and the US and Nato knows that more than anybody since they fucking invented and practiced the same shit in Iraq and Afghanistan. [editline]13th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;41027375]you're more awkward arguing with than laserguided[/QUOTE] Oh man he posts a slight second before I do and I can't update my words that are based on a post at the top of the page.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027394]It's a more complicated issue than that. In war, civilians die and are targeted. Massacres happen when suspicions are at all time highs and it sucks, but that's war. It's not all black and white and the US and Nato knows that more than anybody since they fucking invented and practiced the same shit in Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] Except the UN reports said that the reprisals in Syria are state-sanctioned policy. and its funny you're pulling the 'complicated' card after all your hilarious simplifications. [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027394]Oh man he posts a slight second before I do and I can't update my words that are based on a post at the top of the page.[/QUOTE] its more to do with your general reading comprehension.

i do have a question though... "The United States has concluded that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to kill at least 100 people, crossing a “red line” and prompting President Obama to provide direct military support to the rebels for the first time, the White House said Thursday." why is it ok for rebels or regime forces to massacre thousands of innocent people with guns, but using chemical weapons to kill 100 crosses a line? it seems like a strange way to look at death.

can we just put a big red x mark over the middle east on the map and just look away for the next few decades?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027414]Except the UN reports said that the reprisals in Syria are state-sanctioned policy. and its funny you're pulling the 'complicated' card after all your hilarious simplifications.[/QUOTE] I don't see how saying that revolutionaries don['t know how to run countries and end up with a violent foreign policy is a simplification. The only reason that the Libyan revolution was as successful as it was post war was because it fucking dismantled the revolutionaries and told them to join the army or go home. A non secular government won't fucking do that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027420]i do have a question though... "The United States has concluded that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to kill at least 100 people, crossing a “red line” and prompting President Obama to provide direct military support to the rebels for the first time, the White House said Thursday." why is it ok for rebels or regime forces to massacre thousands of innocent people with guns, but using chemical weapons to kill 100 crosses a line? it seems like a strange way to look at death.[/QUOTE] chemical weapon use can quickly escalate.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027420]i do have a question though... "The United States has concluded that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to kill at least 100 people, crossing a “red line” and prompting President Obama to provide direct military support to the rebels for the first time, the White House said Thursday." why is it ok for rebels or regime forces to massacre thousands of innocent people with guns, but using chemical weapons to kill 100 crosses a line? it seems like a strange way to look at death.[/QUOTE] They don't even fucking specify. Could be White Phosphorus. [editline]13th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;41027448]chemical weapon use can quickly escalate.[/QUOTE] To?

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027442]I don't see how saying that revolutionaries don['t know how to run countries and end up with a violent foreign policy is a simplification. The only reason that the Libyan revolution was as successful as it was post war was because it fucking dismantled the revolutionaries and told them to join the army or go home. A non secular government won't fucking do that.[/QUOTE] how is anything you just said not a simplification

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027448]chemical weapon use can quickly escalate.[/QUOTE] so can shooting unarmed people...and it has.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027453]how is anything you just said not a simplification[/QUOTE] Now you're just arguing semantics of english.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027466]Now you're just arguing semantics of english.[/QUOTE] um no? I'm arguing against a fallacy

I like how everyone was bitching that the US and everyone else was doing absolutely nothing but when they do something everyone flips their shit.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027464]so can shooting unarmed people...and it has.[/QUOTE] Yes. But what if the regime gets more confident in using chemical weapons outside of 'limited engagements'. Do you really want that to happen as well?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027491]Yes. But what if the regime gets more confident in using chemical weapons outside of 'limited engagements'. Do you really want that to happen as well?[/QUOTE] You're acting as if Syria thinks it's not a second rate power. It knows that it can't fuck with NATO and they haven't used it on a mass scale because of it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027420]i do have a question though... "The United States has concluded that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to kill at least 100 people, crossing a “red line” and prompting President Obama to provide direct military support to the rebels for the first time, the White House said Thursday." why is it ok for rebels or regime forces to massacre thousands of innocent people with guns, but using chemical weapons to kill 100 crosses a line? it seems like a strange way to look at death.[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't know it seems nonsensical. Kill tens of thousands people with shrapnel, bombs, bullets, its alright but a couple guys catch some gas and apparently its a big deal

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027491]Yes. But what if the regime gets more confident in using chemical weapons outside of 'limited engagements'. Do you really want that to happen as well?[/QUOTE] i'm not saying chemical weapons aren't bad. i'm saying it's odd that the line is 100 people killed with chemical weapons versus thousands of people murdered in other ways.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027448]chemical weapon use can quickly escalate.[/QUOTE] it hasn't and probably won't. Chemical weapons (at least the ones we are talking about) aren't a very effective weapons of war. There's a reason it fell out of favour after WW1 other than the ethical concerns.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027517]i'm not saying chemical weapons aren't bad. i'm saying it's odd that the line is 100 people killed with chemical weapons versus thousands of people murdered in other ways.[/QUOTE] What if Assad gassed 15,000 people tomorrow and the international community intervened? that is still completely insignificant compared to those killed by artillery and bombs and still equally arbitrary as 100.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027529]What if Assad gassed 15,000 people tomorrow and the international community intervened? that is still completely insignificant compared to those killed by artillery and bombs and still equally arbitrary as 100?[/QUOTE] What if's and maybes. He won't because the reason he's in power right now is that as crazy as he is, he knows not to fucking use them.

[QUOTE=Aman;41027528]it hasn't and probably won't. Chemical weapons (at least the ones we are talking about) aren't a very effective weapons of war. There's a reason it fell out of favour after WW1 other than the ethical concerns.[/QUOTE] They're great for terrorising population centres though [editline]14th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027542]What if's and maybes. He won't because the reason he's in power right now is that as crazy as he is, he knows not to fucking use them.[/QUOTE] Reading comprehension. Use it. We're talking about the arbitrary nature of deciding where the 'red line' goes. Nothing more.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027529]What if Assad gassed 15,000 people tomorrow and the international community intervened? that is still completely insignificant compared to those killed by artillery and bombs and still equally arbitrary as 100.[/QUOTE] idk i'm against foreign intervention no matter what since most examples show it destabilizing the area further. [editline]14th June 2013[/editline] i mean i'm not a good person to ask about "red lines" because i think they are an odd way of deciding that a regime has gone "too far" anyways.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41027549]They're great for terrorising population centres though [editline]14th June 2013[/editline] Reading comprehension. Use it.[/QUOTE] Be fucking realistic. He doesn't want the war to grow any larger than it is because hell will spill over and he'll lose his fucking seat at the palace and will be fucking executed. Sticking to the rules laid out and not using chemical weapons isn't a hard concept. And come on, debate my points instead of being like, READING COMPREHNSION, SIMPLICIFCATION!, DUMB RATING! I'm calling you out on this since it's all you've been doing for an hour now instead of debating my posts.

A No-Fly Zone seemed to work for Libya.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027593]Be fucking realistic. He doesn't want the war to grow any larger than it is because hell will spill over and he'll lose his fucking seat at the palace and will be fucking executed. Sticking to the rules laid out and not using chemical weapons isn't a hard concept. And come on, debate my points instead of being like, READING COMPREHNSION, SIMPLICIFCATION!, DUMB RATING![/QUOTE] if he was interested in "the rules" then he wouldn't have used the chemical weapons in the first place nor would he have gotten the army out to shoot protesters. [editline]14th June 2013[/editline] if assad cared about any of that the civil war wouldn't have happened in the first place.