JKAsiege

Should the International Community intervene in Syria?

Your thoughts?

I don't even know what's going on. I don't watch TV you know. Just getting bits of information from 9gag and I figured USA has something with Syria now. Could someone enlight me about the situation?

I think if we are going to be involved (which tbh we shouldn't be since we have our own shit to worry about) we should actually act on our fucking words and show some force when a group crosses the so-called 'red line' (yews of chemical weapons on civilians) otherwise it makes us look like a bunch of pussfucks.

But hey, what do you expect from a Commander in Chief that fucked up Benghazi as badly as he did, and then broomed the entire thing under the carpet to keep it from the public?

Our President has no fucking idea what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy.

But I guess vagueness and backtracking are what you get when you elect a lawyer president.

@Xeon Syria decided to yews chemical weapons on their own people....

If the US says we are going to do some shit we need to follow thru and actually do it. We need presidents like Kennedy. When he said sent Russia the ultimatum he was fully prepared to follow thru with it, had the bombers lined up and everything. Now adays its all bark and no bite. We SAY were going to take action but we never do...


EDIT: Would this fall under the lets not talk about licking places thread?

Unfortunately, the best thing for stability in Syria is to keep the Assad regime in power. Oppression is bad, but it's better than the massive sectarian violence that would happen between different rebel groups.

"Nowadays its all bark and no bite."

That's easy to understand. Noone wants to start a war, it is a very big responsibility to make decisions about who dies.

Also to test chemical weapons on living people is horrible.

I'd add my own suggestions to the list, but guard doesn't like it when people talk about licking places.

Denmark is (or at least was for a few days) considering aiding a U.S. lead operation against Syria. I'm glad the politicians here seem to have changed their mind. I don't particularly see why we'd need another enemy.
That being said, I'd be happy to see an american/british/what's-his-name strike on Syria militry targets to remind everyone what the CWC is all about.

Turquoise Dragon wrote:I'd add my own suggestions to the list, but guard doesn't like it when people talk about licking places.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9w1BEINyxs‎

?

I'm not exactly talking about licking places, but anyway...

'Tis quite interesting. On the one hand we need to protect their human rights because of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (which now overrides the State Sovereignty Charter I think), but if we do intervene it could lead to another Iraq style war, except this time Russia and Iran aren't going to just sit around. Also if we're supplying ammunition it could end up falling into the hands of...certain...groups associated with the rebels.

But America needs to do something about the chemical attack, or, as Magyk put it in a quite unsubtle way, the US will look like a 'bunch of pussfucks'.