'Ball of fire in Middle East': Tehran, Damascus warn US against Syria strike - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jacam12SUX;41966825]implying the current US government would do it for the "greater good".[/QUOTE] The main reason for intervention would be for protection of Syrian lives. There isnt much politically for the U.S to gain with intervention.

[QUOTE=Jacam12SUX;41966825]implying the current US government would do it for the "greater good".[/QUOTE] yes that's exactly what I'm saying. like BusterBluth said the US has pretty much nothing to gain from intervening in the situation with Syria, it would be done as it is the right thing to do you know protecting a large number of innocent human lives and all

-snip

lol ok syria

[QUOTE] [Iran says] “the red line” on Syria threatening it would have “severe consequences”[/QUOTE] Fuck off.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;41965104]if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner[/QUOTE] Then the UN should step in. The US shouldn't personally be involved in this conflict. Neither side seems to be exactly trustworthy and both of them are pointing fingers at each other over the chemical attack.

Everyone is getting mad at everyone Y:v:Y

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;41965227]You still intervene. Someone is using them, and people are dying. At this point, what matters most is making sure that doesn't happen any longer.[/QUOTE] You're kidding yourself if you honestly believe that there's even a remote chance that the US won't side with the rebels in any kind of intervention scenario.

CNN is reporting that the Russian Foreign Minister is now also warning the US of "severe consequences" if attacking Syria.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;41965104]if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner[/QUOTE] Why does it justify intervention now? Before chemical weapons were used, 90,000+ were killed by bombs, bullets, missiles, rockets, mines, and cannons. Not to mention the amount of people maimed and disfigured from said weapons. [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CasualJoe;41965414]You do nothing, muslim countries are not yet ready to keep a stable democracy.[/QUOTE] Yep, democratic countries have NOTHING wrong with them and are shining beacons of hope, like America is for immigrants, right?? Oh wait...

What's Iran going to do? Outfit their rubber dingies to actually make it out into the Mediterranean? Do they remember the last time their Navy encountered some of ours? Syria is a shit hole and a massive headache that isn't worth so many other countries fighting one another over. No one's going to oppose the US' missile strikes if we carry them out other than with angry letters

UN inspectors have come under fire on their way to the area

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;41972019]Except we shouldn't even waste the munitions. Syria is a giant clusterfuck, bombing a few areas will throw everything off balance even more, allowing a rebel victory; except.... The rebels aren't a homoginous unit, there are several extremist groups too. How bout we aid refugees in camps, and just leave the shithole to be a shithole.[/QUOTE] Just leave the civilians to be slaughtered in mass. Reducing Assads capability to murder thousands is worth a few munitions.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;41972341]Then open the country to a collapse into extremism, thus leading to civillians being slaughtered en masse. It's lose lose, why waste the millions of dollars in munitions?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how preventing civilians from getting gassed is opening the country to extremism.