Six reasons why Americans should be concerned about the Syrian conflict - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Spooter;35528919][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdiGahJItOA"]Except for Leon Panetta, the god damn Secretary of fucking defense you idiots.[/URL] He only clearly stated it in the most simple and distinct terms possible.[/QUOTE] People are quick to forget.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;35526282]Well then, glorious America, go grab their-----er.... restore peace and democracy in that fallen country![/QUOTE] because oil prices just shot way down immediately after 9/11 please justify this accusation

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35526862] Why not have the UK or Germany intervene?[/QUOTE] Because this time around we can't use NATO, and Russia and China are blocking legislation in the UN. Any sort of intervention would be unsanctioned by the UN, establishing a pretty dangerous precedent for the West as well as angering many nations (Russia and China in particular will feel as if the security council is a sham if we just run around it). Going through the UN is the only way. It won't be a purely US effort, but it needs to actually pass in the UN first and foremost.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;35530203]Because this time around we can't use NATO, and Russia and China are blocking legislation in the UN. Any sort of intervention would be unsanctioned by the UN, establishing a pretty dangerous precedent for the West as well as angering many nations (Russia and China in particular will feel as if the security council is a sham if we just run around it). Going through the UN is the only way. It won't be a purely US effort, but it needs to actually pass in the UN first and foremost.[/QUOTE] Syrian troops fired on some Turkish troops the other though. Isn't that a justification for enacting article five and sending in NATO? It's certainly a very bad justification, but c'mon, people are dying at this very second.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35526862] Why not have the UK or Germany intervene?[/QUOTE] The UK and France were the main driving forces with Libya up to September and spent nearly $2bn there, America helped up until July Also how the fuck is Oil an issue again? Saudi Arabia said it could boost production by 25% to meet demand due to Iran's sanctions and any other unrest, it's a load of bullshit and purely profiteering by oil companies.

Six reasons I think American intervention is a bad idea: 1: That sort of thing is kinda sorta the main reason that part of the world fucking hates us. We have a habit of looking at countries ten thousand miles away and going "....they're under a different government. LET'S FORCE THEM TO USE OUR SYSTEM INSTEAD!" 2: Intervening will cause a huge clusterfuck of anger within the UN, and honestly I don't want russia and china pissed at the US as well. THEY have the capacity to actually damage us. 3: Oil prices will skyrocket. Oil companies love to speculate and profiteer, they'll use any excuse they can to bump prices, and troops storming another middle-eastern country is a pretty handy excuse for them. 4: They haven't asked for such an intervention yet. If they ask for it I'm fine with troops going there, if they don't ask for it I can't help but see another "Team America World Police" situation forming. 5: Storming into Syria may destabilize the entire region and cause us to get attacked yet again. Iran's been sabre-rattling for months now, they may use it as an excuse to do something stupid. Israel may use it as an excuse to bomb Iran or Palestine. I have a feeling it would cause even more conflict than would exist normally. 6: Finally: We have no fucking business there. Unless the rebels ask for our assistance we don't have any reason to just storm the place and 'liberate' the people. Again, such actions are why our international reputation is shot to hell, and it's why the middle east universally hates us. The situation in Syria is horrible and something needs to be done, but I don't feel the US just storming in is the right solution. If the rebels ask for such help, then fuck yeah. Lock and load, boys, time to do some liberating. If they only ask for help with supplies then I feel that's all we should do, sending troops in may cause more problems than it will solve. If they don't ask for our help at all then we should just stay out of the conflict entirely, lest we break more than we fix. Here's hoping the president in charge makes the right decision regarding Syria. I agree they need to be liberated from their oppressive regime, but I don't think just storming in like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is the best of ideas.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;35526282]Well then, glorious America, go grab their-----er.... restore peace and democracy in that fallen country![/QUOTE] Jesus fucking Christ stop with that, it was proven multiple times that the US is not there for oil. Restoring peace is bull shit, but so is the imperialistic oil theory.

And since Europe is forever in our debt everyone can have fun. Desert party y'all.

[QUOTE]2. Al Qaeda. The United States' No. 1 enemy would appreciate another failed state from which to operate in the Middle[/QUOTE] You guys realize that because we overthrow Saddam, we invited the Al Qaeda into Iraq, and Al Qaeda and other Sunni Islamists make up the majority of the armed Syrian opposition. [QUOTE]Geography. Think of Syria as the Middle East's core. When it's weak and destabilized, the body is susceptible to serious injury. Violence in Syria could easily spill into bordering Iraq, where the United States recently ended a war that ran from March 2003 to December 2011 and where U.S. troops and American civilians still work.[/QUOTE] You also realize that the Iraqi Insurgency IS crossing into Syria. also, #3 is bullshit, the Iran-Iraq insurgency connections were pulled out of Washington's ass.

[QUOTE=cccritical;35529902]because oil prices just shot way down immediately after 9/11 please justify this accusation[/QUOTE] It's just foreigners jacking off to the idea that America's wars are only over resources. Which they haven't been. Ever.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;35527215]7. Thousands of people are dying[/QUOTE] Pffft... Everyone knows people dying in [i]other[/i] country's that aren't america are worth less. And an Arab country? Forget about it. Anyway, about that oil...

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35526862]It doesn't help that every time the US intervenes, we are labeled, "World Police" and, "Oil thieves". Why not have the UK or Germany intervene?[/QUOTE] Maybe because the US makes a habit of doing exactly that.

I find it funny that we are not getting involved, and it somehow happens that its one of the only countries in the middle east without vast oil reserves.

I find it funny that America gets involved, and is called a bunch of empire builders (by British, usually) and warmongers. And then, when we don't get involved, it's because we're heartless bastards (by Germans, usually) or there is no oil to save (when America never saw a drop of oil from Iraq, and, in fact, our prices increased 300%).

[QUOTE=Ridge;35534710]I find it funny that America gets involved, and is called a bunch of empire builders (by British, usually) and warmongers. And then, when we don't get involved, it's because we're heartless bastards (by Germans, usually) or there is no oil to save (when America never saw a drop of oil from Iraq, and, in fact, our prices increased 300%).[/QUOTE] Those germans must be pissed off teenagers that don't pay attention to history at all. We've done so so much for Germany in the last 100 years.

I'll believe that America only fights wars for oil when I see American troops rolling into Alberta.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;35534036]It's just foreigners jacking off to the idea that America's wars are only over resources. Which they haven't been. Ever.[/QUOTE] There have been some pretty petty wars though, like the War of 1812.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;35534820]Those germans must be pissed off teenagers that don't pay attention to history at all. We've done so so much for Germany in the last 100 years.[/QUOTE] More like the last 50-60 [editline]11th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DaysBefore;35534870]I'll believe that America only fights wars for oil when I see American troops rolling into Alberta.[/QUOTE] Isn't Canada an American colony? :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35534981]More like the last 50-60 [/QUOTE] Yeah, my bad. I'm counting when we told France and England to back off after WW1 with the whole "you owe us everything" thing.

i am surprised that Russia wasn't on their list

[QUOTE=Ridge;35534710]I find it funny that America gets involved, and is called a bunch of empire builders (by British, usually) and warmongers. And then, when we don't get involved, it's because we're heartless bastards (by Germans, usually) or there is no oil to save (when America never saw a drop of oil from Iraq, and, in fact, our prices increased 300%).[/QUOTE] I like how you're whining about being painted in a bad light while you're stereotyping. You are a laughably terrible poster and your avatar is like tragic croutons to the mix.

[QUOTE=Ermac20;35526946]war used to be about different idealogys not taking resources not for america[/QUOTE] and the reason the japs attacked us in WWII was because they hated us? It was largely due to the fact we had an oil embargo on them. Oil is something that has been a big issue in the past and will be till it's gone in its entirety.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35535448]I like how you're whining about being painted in a bad light while you're stereotyping. You are a laughably terrible poster and your avatar is like tragic croutons to the mix.[/QUOTE] You are not one to talk about being a shitty poster.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;35526282]Well then, glorious America, go grab their-----er.... restore peace and democracy in that fallen country![/QUOTE] When has America ever "grabbed oil" or invaded a control for control of oil? Please point this out to me.

THERE R NO GOOD REASONS N UR A FGGAT LET SYRIA SOLVE THEERE OWN PRUBLEMS

[QUOTE=King Tiger;35535989]When has America ever "grabbed oil" or invaded a control for control of oil? Please point this out to me.[/QUOTE] because george bush is bad mmkay and america is evil world police and and and america is bad because internet told me so!

America should just mind it's own business and not get involved. But I know that won't happen because the folks in Washington are all too happy playing the foreign policy/military card.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;35534036]It's just foreigners jacking off to the idea that America's wars are only over resources. Which they haven't been. Ever.[/QUOTE] You've always had enough stupid ass political reasons to make resources just a side goal.

[QUOTE=Falchion;35538482]You've always had enough stupid ass political reasons to make resources just a side goal.[/QUOTE] No you see resources have never been a goal period and that's why people are dumb for saying it.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;35526862]It doesn't help that every time the US intervenes, we are labeled, "World Police" and, "Oil thieves". Why not have the UK or Germany intervene?[/QUOTE] They did in Libya.