Syrian loyalists massacre children (GRAPHIC!)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by UU_ood, May 27, 2012.

  1. The leaders of the world are turning a blind eye to massacre and genocide....
  2. Assad vs. Al-Qaeda

    Take your pick if you think you need to interject your opinion onto a foreign nation's civil war, because these are the only 2 sides with any sort of clout.

    Assad is a bad guy, more then obvious by now. The opposition forces are just as bad, so enough with the first world guilt.
  3. population control
  4. Seal team 6 the bastard.

    idk, just save those damn kids
  5. yeah, they cared about the 500,000 kids in iraq too..

  6. entirely unrelated. we weren't sanctioning iraq to save kids.


  7. Didn't we hang sadam for the genocide, etc?
    I thought saving the people from the evil dictator was the reason we went in (after the wmd thing didn't pan out)

  8. This.

    I don't even know of any military actions we have taken in the last few decades that weren't for oil, resources, power, etc. Not a single one. It's never about humanitarian reasons. It's always just imperialist expansion.

    If people are being slaughtered, and there is oil in that location, they have a chance. If not, forget about it. Ain't happening.
  9. Oh look. It was only a matter of time before a libertarian came to derail this topic. If you aren't bashing the USA, gtfo. And yes I feel the need to state my opinion on the massacre of children. I'm sorry this isn't in line with your appeal to apathy.
  10. Assad has broken so many international laws, he does need to go. China and Russia need to get on board with this shit.
  11. They paid for it.

  12. There is no inherent reason that policy could change once, and no inherent reason that a 'state' not do something for good reason.

    Don't think just in confines of status quo US would likely do.

  13. All interventionist governments are the same, because interventionism stems from immorality in the first place imo. The best way to spread peace is by actually being peaceful. To charge a coercive state with spreading peace is the height is naïveté.

  14. You think sitting by would have been the best way to spread peace to the Nazis?

  15. Oh please.

    We're not derailing this thread. We're being realistic. Look at our government's shady history of saying it's doing one thing and is really doing another. Look how much foreign politics we play just to get bit in the ass later. Our military industrial complex-ridden system is not a trustworthy one right now. Government is too big, and too bought out by GE and all these other companies profiting off the endless wars overseas. So yeah, we're a little doubtful that our government will simply send task forces over there to put a halt to the slaying of children. This isn't call of duty. They'll go and occupy the region, draining it's economy, killing more innocent civilians, dropping more bombs, all in the "name of saving the children."

    Yeah. This shit is really fucked up. But using the American military to try to solve these problems is not the correct or smart answer.
  16. #18 UU_ood, May 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2012
    It was a question and you responded to it with a rant. Of course it's derailing the thread. Every thread I see that has anything to do with foreign crimes ends up becoming a "America is going to drop peace bombs now!" joke thread. It's like a knee-jerk reaction. We don't need another thread about why America shouldn't intervene in another country. How often do you see those.

  17. You posted an extremely graphic video of children getting massacred and you're surprised I had a lot to say about it?

    What would your idea be of how to best handle this situation?

  18. Yes..

Share This Page