Syrian Uprising, Civil War, Intervention, Etc.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by xmaspoo, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. Any and all things relating to the worsening situation in Syria itt.

    Britain in secret talks with Syrian rebels - World Politics - World - The Independent

    Clinton says there could be civil war in Syria | Reuters

    Deja Vu here we go. ;)
  2. Ambush Video Released: Free Syrian Army Attacks Regime -- News from

  3. Syria's army is about half a million strong. I seriously, seriously doubt that NATO will enter into the fray in any way akin to what happened in Libya.

    That being said, I think we should all take a moment to reflect on what courage these Syrians must have to stand up to their government in the face of what any fool could tell them will amount to violent repression. Forget Occupy _____ in the US, forget pepper-spray and batons... I watched a video this morning of a boy with his brains literally spilling out of his head, of a father kneeling beside his son, watching him die, and a man (still living) that was missing his jaw, it having been shot off by AK47 bullets... Assad is a disgusting, ruthless, cowardly human being. Let us all hope that the Syrian people have their freedom from such oppression before too long with as little more spilled blood as possible.

  4. Can the freedom be obtained without western meddling though?

    Syria doesn't like Assad, this is fairly obvious. What they like even less is foreign involvement, whether it be Libya style NATO bombings or financing of the opposition.

    It's fairly obvious that Britain, France, U.S. and others are all involved with the Syrian opposition. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. :devious:
  5. Aircraft Carrier CVN-77 Parks Next Door To Syria Just As US Urges Americans To Leave Country "Immediately" | ZeroHedge

  6. Amen. I hope surrounding Arab nations intervene because we can't do it anymore and unfortunately I doubt the Syrians can do this themselves.
    Esh ked heluwa el hurriya.
  7. The worlds a changin' i can't wait to see whats happening in 5 years from now.
  8. No surprise the MIC's dirty fingers are all over this, U.S wants full spectrum dominance of the region. Assad and the Ayatollah wont play ball, therefore they must go if the U.S is to maintain a permanent oil for dollar standard.

    When the money loses value, the thugs force you to use it anyways, no matter how worthless it is.
  9. AFP: Arabs give Syria new ultimatum, call for UN support

    Sen. McCain compares Assad to Gadhafi - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
    Graham: Now is the time to take action in Syria - CBS News
    [ame=]French Bloodthirst: Sarkozy wants Syria - YouTube[/ame]
  10. If anyone is interested (and has the stomach) in seeing what is really going on in Syria visit this brave Syrian's Youtube channel 'abowaki' and then tell me you don't support any attempt to free the shit out of them. The actual videos are too graphic for me to post here.
  11. I would support freeing the Syrian people. Unfortunately NATO does not liberate people.
  12. No, most of the little countries that make up NATO do not liberate people. The US does under the NATO banner. It's not perfect but Iraq has democratic elections and so do the Afghanis although they are so behind the times there's no helping them. But the Syrian people can achieve and crave freedom and just need the push from any willing and capable force to help them. Whether that be the Arab league, NATO, Mossad, or whatever, any of those forces would put them in a better position than they are in today.
  13. What the US does might be experienced as liberation, but it is merely a side effect of what it is trying to accomplish, which is to oust leaders that are unfavorable to the US. This is not liberation, because the new leaders are heavily indebted to the US and must be favorable to the US. If not, the US won't hesitate to remove them again.

  14. If they're hostile to US and her interests sure. Never bite the hand that feeds you...
  15. There's a difference between being hostile to the US and being hostile to the interests of the US. Leaders should be allowed to be unfavorable to the US diplomaticly as long as they don't physically attack the US.
  16. #18 AlienBlood, Nov 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2011
    It's a lose/lose. You leave them alone and there is chaos in the middle east and you intervene and there is chaos in the middle east. These people are incredible. Even still, US and Israel must finish the job of cleaning their clocks. These dictators have no business in the 21st century. Same goes for Muslim radicals.

    On second thought, maybe we can sit this one out. :smoke:

    Oh Obama, my niqqa ;)
  17. i think i'll choose chaos in the middle east and we leave them alone..

    if it's gonna be chaos either way, then we should stay home.

    what's the point of going there just to cause chaos?
  18. It's like, putting a white american republican male (who favors the status quo) in the middle of a group of afghani men working out a problem - What good is that going to do? It's intruding

Share This Page