Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[10ebbor10]

Yup, the US is still stuck in the mindset that they're the world's police force, and the only true superpower after the fall of the Sovjet Union. They aren't though.

[Dutchling]

Meh, just send a few rockets their way. People will get bored of it soon enough. End of the problem.

[Sheb]

Well, they're one of the only state that can do stuff anywhere on the world. They get stuck in this kind of situation because they're the only one who can do something about it.

[10ebbor10]

Well, they're one of the only state that can do stuff anywhere on the world. They get stuck in this kind of situation because they're the only one who can do something about it.

They used to be. Unilateral world politics are rapidly failing.

[GreatJustice]

The US is obligated not to intervene, if not because American intervention basically never works, the rebels are believed to have actually used gas, or because Russia and China are very clearly opposing any intervention, then because of the fact that domestic support for intervention is something like 9% in the US.

[10ebbor10]

The US is obligated not to intervene, if not because American intervention basically never works, the rebels are believed to have actually used gas, or because Russia and China are very clearly opposing any intervention, then because of the fact that domestic support for intervention is something like 9% in the US.

Unless the US shows their additional evidence, and it proves to give an undeniable certainty that the regime launched the attack, Russia will veto anything that happens.

Also, 2 thirds of the French population dislike a possible military intervention. So it won't be long before France drops out too.

[aenri]

I also believe that the US intervention in any form would be the worst thing that could happen.
Literally everyone else is against it, it will cost mucho $$$, the public is pretty much opposed (but since when does governement give two shits about what the public thinks?) and the situation in Syria wouldnt be helped in any way by the intervention.

It will amount just to very expensive muscle flexing (and some people will get rich from it back in the States) - also double standards/realpolitik here, why attack the only ally of Russia in Middle East, when there are african "countries" (hello Somalia and Sudan) which are ravaged by civil war for much longer, but US doesnt give a shit, because no profit from it.

The last thing is that Syria must sort its problems out, the most likely thing is for Assad to crush all the rebels and restore peace to country. That civil war is going for far too long and Assad proved that he wont be toppled by foreign powers so easily like Gaddafi was.

[Sheb]

To be honest, Sudan never used gas.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, I'm still not entirely sure why killing everyone with gas is SO much worse than killing everyone with bullets.

[Sheb]

Gas is a remarkably efficient weapons to mass kill people, and one that the world was kinda successful at banning. You can't hope to ban bullets, but you can ban gas, and you have to make sure it stays banned.

[GlyphGryph]

But what's the point? Are we just taking an ideological stance against efficiency? Cluster Munitions against civilian targets are illegal under international law as well, but no one seems to have given a shit when Assad used those. If we wanted to make sure gas wasn't used, we could have acted earlier (the US was aware he was planning a gas attack and did nothing). If we wanted to declare gas unacceptable we could have stopped him when he started building and stockpiling it. If we cared about people dying, we could have stopped him when he started massacring folks.

Why is that these things are only worth caring about if they're done together? I honestly do not understand.

[Pnx]

Because we don't want to really actually go to all the effort of enforcing some kind of zero tolerance for gas or cluster bombs or genocide or anything else. It costs a lot of money and effort, and involves getting into wars we don't want to get involved in.

Plus of course there's the whole issue where we really wanted to avoid pissing off Russia, and Russia will basically back Assad no matter what he does as long as he keeps in line with their interests.

[Moghjubar]

Because Casus belli.

[Helgoland]

Casus belli would have been Assad killing his unarmed population in 2011; look at Kosovo. This is the world realizing that Syrians are too white to simply ignore.

As for the reason why we ban gas, but not bullets: Gas is a horrible weapon. Not gonna link stuff, but google "WWI gas victims" and just let those photos sink in.
You can aim bullets; you can even aim cluster bombs and land mines; you can't aim gas. And it sticks around as well, making it very useful as an area denial weapon. Baaaad stuff, and this is coming from someone with a bit of an interest in organophosphorous chemistry.

[Moghjubar]

You can aim lots of things, and some things you can either aim or not aim, and some such things aren't even considered 'chemical weapons'... or at least not when we use them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In any case, I mean Casus belli in the sense that there's now something we want, therefore we need a reason to go to war.  Other places are shit/deatholes and yet we don't care so much.