71% of Britons say MPs were right to reject Syria action - two thirds don't care if it damages US re - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RikohZX;42054070]So it was a lose-lose. Greaaaat.[/QUOTE] I don't see how it's lose-lose.

As an american, I think the US, along with other countries should enforce international law but only if it is proven the syrian regime did use chemical warfare. Just my personal opinion, this is the only time im okay with the US using military intervention in an middle eastern country.

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42054105]As an american, I think the US, along with other countries should enforce international law but only if it is proven the syrian regime did use chemical warfare. Just my personal opinion, this is the only time im okay with the US using military intervention in an middle eastern country.[/QUOTE] The problem is public opinion, a lot of people share what you are thinking but then don't trust the various governments who have announced that their intelligence agencies have proof the regime did it.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42054152]The problem is public opinion, a lot of people share what you are thinking but then don't trust the various governments who have announced that their intelligence agencies have proof the regime did it.[/QUOTE] Isn't UN inspectors or whatever on still working on it?

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42054185]Isn't UN inspectors or whatever on still working on it?[/QUOTE] The UN inspectors are answering the question "Were chemical weapons used on the 21st of August" and nothing else. They are not looking into the delivery method or trying to assign blame. Short of the Assad regime admitting it only intelligence agencies can answer the question of [I]who[/I].

[QUOTE=Jsm;42054253]The UN inspectors are answering the question "Were chemical weapons used on the 21st of August" and nothing else. They are not looking into the delivery method or trying to assign blame. Short of the Assad regime admitting it only intelligence agencies can answer the question of [I]who[/I].[/QUOTE] and we all learned how reliable intelligence agencies were with iraq.

[QUOTE=RikohZX;42054070]So it was a lose-lose. Greaaaat.[/QUOTE] lesser of the two evils I suppose, yea I don't know how you guys can be totally against intervention in Syria. I mean I agree getting into another war should always be the last of things on your priority list, and I do believe it should be a UN mission, but if we all just ignore the atrocities occurring in Syria is that really okay either? A few years down the line we could be discussing 'man, how did we turn a blind eye and let all the innocent people get ravaged by their own country and stand there and do nothing about it?' nobody really wins in this situation it seems to me, either we get involved in a war and the gov't loses favor of the public, or potentially looking into the future we see what our ignorance blossomed into countless innocents dying which could of been prevented or least reduced with our help edit: this is all assuming without a shadow of a doubt that the Assad regime that really employed the chemical attacks. even barring the notion that international law has to be upheld, you have to take into consideration the other countless inhumane crimes the Syrian government have committed thus far

[QUOTE=lum1naire;42054374]lesser of the two evils I suppose, yea I don't know how you guys can be totally against intervention in Syria. I mean I agree getting into another war should always be the last of things on your priority list, and I do believe it should be a UN mission, but if we all just ignore the atrocities occurring in Syria is that really okay either? [B]A few years down the line we could be discussing 'man, how did we turn a blind eye and let all the innocent people get ravaged by their own country and stand there and do nothing about it?'[/B] nobody really wins in this situation it seems to me, either we get involved in a war and the gov't loses favor of the public, or potentially looking into the future we see what our ignorance blossomed into countless innocents dying which could of been prevented or least reduced with our help[/QUOTE] Because they're not our innocent people getting ravaged. It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;42054374]lesser of the two evils I suppose, yea I don't know how you guys can be totally against intervention in Syria. I mean I agree getting into another war should always be the last of things on your priority list, and I do believe it should be a UN mission, but if we all just ignore the atrocities occurring in Syria is that really okay either? A few years down the line we could be discussing 'man, how did we turn a blind eye and let all the innocent people get ravaged by their own country and stand there and do nothing about it?' nobody really wins in this situation it seems to me, either we get involved in a war and the gov't loses favor of the public, or potentially looking into the future we see what our ignorance blossomed into countless innocents dying which could of been prevented or least reduced with our help[/QUOTE] I don't think the situation is ignorable, albeit the intervention of Syria may pave way for 'well if you're helping them, why won't you help [country here] too?!' arguments all over. It's just that it's being very poorly handled, which is probably why a lot of people are pissy about the situation.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;42054403]Because they're not our innocent people getting ravaged. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE] what innocent people do we own, exactly?

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;42054403]Because they're not our innocent people getting ravaged. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE] I understand that, but as I see it that sounds horrible to me. Ignoring the plight of others because it has nothing to do with our safety? I understand protecting the safety of our own, but we need to at least show empathy, and in action not words.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;42054420]I understand that, but as I see it that sounds horrible to me. Ignoring the plight of others because it has nothing to do with our safety? I understand protecting the safety of our own, but we need to at least show empathy, and in action not words.[/QUOTE] So do we invade every country with internal conflicts? It shouldn't be our job to resolve who wins and who doesn't.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;42054457]So do we invade every country with internal conflicts? It shouldn't be our job to resolve who wins and who doesn't.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that. Are you forgetting just how serious the crimes the Syrian government committing are? This has escalated far beyond just a simple internal conflict for awhile now. It's not a matter of resolving who will win or not, but rather intervening in a manner that can save the most lives. If that corresponds with taking a side (which it obviously does), then so be it. I hate the USA having to be this 'world police force' too, but if other countries are willing to turn their backs on crimes like this being committed on humanity, doesn't mean the USA should. All I'm saying is if we don't involve ourselves in this conflict, we and the rest of the developed world might look back on this and see a blood bath that could of been prevented with some serious help. My post is targeting those that post here thinking any involvement with the Syrian crisis is a bad idea, and just to turn a blind eye. All I'm saying is to totally ignore this and remove it from our minds is cruel.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;42054403]Because they're not our innocent people getting ravaged. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE] That is a pretty shitty mentality. Innocent people are innocent people no matter where they live or what soil they are in.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;42054420]I understand that, but as I see it that sounds horrible to me. Ignoring the plight of others because it has nothing to do with our safety? I understand protecting the safety of our own, but we need to at least show empathy, and in action not words.[/QUOTE] I'll help any man with anything so long as I'm not at risk for myself. In this case, there's a great deal of risk.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;42054533]I didn't say that. Are you forgetting just how serious the crimes the Syrian government committing are? This has escalated far beyond just a simple internal conflict for awhile now. It's not a matter of resolving who will win or not, but rather intervening in a manner that can save the most lives. If that corresponds with taking a side (which it obviously does), then so be it. I hate the USA having to be this 'world police force' too, but if other countries are willing to turn their backs on crimes like this being committed on humanity, doesn't mean the USA should. All I'm saying is if we don't involve ourselves in this conflict, we and the rest of the developed world might look back on this and see a blood bath that could of been prevented with some serious help. My post is targeting those that post here thinking any involvement with the Syrian crisis is a bad idea, and just to turn a blind eye. All I'm saying is to totally ignore this and remove it from our minds is cruel.[/QUOTE] There have been crimes just as bad and still being committed today, but we can't go around intervening especially when they have nothing to do with us. It is a matter of resolving who wins and who doesn't because our government explicitly stated so about removing Assad and arming the rebels. Nobody is turning a blind eye. We're all aware of what's going on, but you have to draw the line. If we invade Syria, we're going to lose a lot of people. It will give our government another reason not to lower our military budget that's already draining money from us. And let's just say we do remove Assad. You have to ask yourself 'what then'? People aren't going to stop fighting each other, especially if the so called rebels already consist of multiple groups and sects, even radical ones, who are going to kill each other eventually. That is if we pack up and leave after Assad is gone, and if we stay there, would natives even accept foreign authority? Because that doesn't go so well for us in Iraq. Even then, assuming we don't pack up and leave and staying there would drain our resources. The US already has a bad reputation with others anyways, especially for being the 'world police' and all. The last thing we need is to pool the resources and money we need and deter away from our own internal problems.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42054324]and we all learned how reliable intelligence agencies were with iraq.[/QUOTE] Don't blame the intelligence agencies, they told both the British and American governments the intel they were using as their casus belli was completely flawed (curveball being a taxi driver etc). The US (and to a less extent the British) government just pushed ahead trying to build its case.

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42054668]That is a pretty shitty mentality. Innocent people are innocent people no matter where they live or what soil they are in.[/QUOTE] Then what's stopping you from going to Syria to help personally? Exactly, like most citizens, we don't have the time or money to help out when we have our own problems. Things like that are too easy to say.

The apathy being shown by the first World is fucking atrocious. The apathy and lack of will to DO anything is what lead to this bloody civil war. Its what lead to half the shit that happened in Africa and now you have a Middle Eastern nation being torn up filled with a radical Government and Mixed Bag Militia. We could've avoid ALL OF THIS if we had ignored Russia and China and brought aid to the rebels immediately. But instead, everyone complained about something mumble something blah blah and now we're all apathetic because we no longer want to associate with the only damn group that actually helped them. This is going to spill over, Turkey is getting strained by this, so are Syria's other neighbors in that region.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056299]The apathy being shown by the first World is fucking atrocious. The apathy and lack of will to DO anything is what lead to this bloody civil war. Its what lead to half the shit that happened in Africa and now you have a Middle Eastern nation being torn up filled with a radical Government and Mixed Bag Militia. We could've avoid ALL OF THIS if we had ignored Russia and China and brought aid to the rebels immediately. But instead, everyone complained about something mumble something blah blah and now we're all apathetic because we no longer want to associate with the only damn group that actually helped them. This is going to spill over, Turkey is getting strained by this, so are Syria's other neighbors in that region.[/QUOTE] So just out of curiosity, small monetary donations aside, what have you done to directly help?

[QUOTE=Superginger;42056383]So just out of curiosity, small monetary donations aside, what have you done to directly help?[/QUOTE] Sent letters to my Congressman and Senators. Its all I can do. I'm just generally sick and tired of the Apathy and this mentality that suddenly Al Qaeda showed up and now its bad. We all knew that if the war dragged on for too long, both sides were going to do horrible things. This lack of movement at all is basically a repeat of Kosovo, which by the way, Europe completely fucked up on.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056299]The apathy being shown by the first World is fucking atrocious. The apathy and lack of will to DO anything is what lead to this bloody civil war. Its what lead to half the shit that happened in Africa and now you have a Middle Eastern nation being torn up filled with a radical Government and Mixed Bag Militia. We could've avoid ALL OF THIS if we had ignored Russia and China and brought aid to the rebels immediately. But instead, everyone complained about something mumble something blah blah and now we're all apathetic because we no longer want to associate with the only damn group that actually helped them. This is going to spill over, Turkey is getting strained by this, so are Syria's other neighbors in that region.[/QUOTE] if you want syrians to die why don't you go kill them yourself and stop asking for everyone else to pay for it?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056452]if you want syrians to die why don't you go kill them yourself and stop asking for everyone else to pay for it?[/QUOTE] I want the least amount of people to die. Acting sooner would've still had people killed but would've stopped more deaths. I'm going to ignore the taxes implication because there is a bunch of stuff in taxes that I wouldn't want to pay for but still will once I start paying them. Its also fairly obvious that you really don't know world history if you're going to go for a low blow comment like that.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056497]I want the least amount of people to die. Acting sooner would've still had people killed but would've stopped more deaths. I'm going to ignore the taxes implication because there is a bunch of stuff in taxes that I wouldn't want to pay for but still will once I start paying them.[/QUOTE] this is the same argument that was used for the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki...among the most brutal and vicious war crimes ever committed against another nation in the history of war.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056512]this is the same argument that was used for the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki...two of the most brutal and vicious war crimes ever committed against another nation in the history of war.[/QUOTE] And we're still dealing with it today. But simply ignoring it like it'll go away is a Classic American attitude. Also, the bombings were massively supported afterward. The questioning of it happened around the 60's onwards. You're basically exemplifying the rich guy ignoring the hobo on the street in any American city. Good job. You're basically saying, "Its not our fault that when they asked us for help and we said no that they turned to more radical means of fighting because that's all they have left. Doesn't matter if both sides used chemical weapons because we're not involved." That Libertarian ideal that somehow we can disconnect ourselves away from the world is moronic and backwards. It would never work.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056537]And we're still dealing with it today. But simply ignoring it like it'll go away is a Classic American attitude. Also, the bombings were massively supported afterward. The questioning of it happened around the 60's onwards. You're basically exemplifying the rich guy ignoring the hobo on the street in any American city. Good job. You're basically saying, "Its not our fault that when they asked us for help and we said no that they turned to more radical means of fighting because that's all they have left. Doesn't matter if both sides used chemical weapons because we're not involved." That Libertarian ideal that somehow we can disconnect ourselves away from the world is moronic and backwards. It would never work.[/QUOTE] im not saying we should be uninvolved in anything, i'm saying that we shouldn't go around murdering people.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056617]im not saying we should be uninvolved in anything, i'm saying that we shouldn't go around murdering people.[/QUOTE] That's a very Black/White way of looking at things. The cCvil War is now two years in, both sides are starting to radicalize. We're past the point of diplomacy and talking, we're looking at least 100,000 dead as of August 2013.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056655]That's a very Black/White way of looking at things. The cCvil War is now two years in, both sides are starting to radicalize. We're past the point of diplomacy and talking, we're looking at least 100,000 dead as of August 2013.[/QUOTE] like i said before, i'm not averse to the idea of helping to protect an area like kurdistan from both the rebels and the government forces. that is not the same as sending over missiles and bombs to murder children.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056705]like i said before, i'm not averse to the idea of helping to protect an area like kurdistan from both the rebels and the government forces. that is not the same as sending over missiles and bombs to murder children.[/QUOTE] Seriously? Please, tell me when the Rebel forces and Security forces cared about children good sir. If you even try to say anything, you're lying to yourself. A strike to end a war would be against military targets such as battle lines and armored vehicles.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42056752]Seriously? Please, tell me when the Rebel forces and Security forces cared about children good sir. If you even try to say anything, you're lying to yourself. A strike to end a war would be against military targets such as battle lines and armored vehicles.[/QUOTE] so are you saying that collateral damage will not happen? i would like to point out the iraqi's who got murdered by american armed forces a decade ago.