Tidbits, Trivias... Share what you want II - Page 10

Originally posted by: Prometeus

The U.S. is ready to launch a strike on Syria to help restore peace in the country. You know, like they did with Iraq and Libya.😎

Originally posted by: tuntunituntuni

and no other country is wit the U.S bt they r still so determined to destroy syria.

there is still no proof of using chemical weapons.

Jeez, get some facts right before commenting. Wrong on so many counts. USA has screwed up more than once in the past decade, but that doesn't mean you make assumptions without knowing the facts.

1. Turkey and France were the first countries to vow military action against Syria. However, they cannot do much without the military backing of USA.
2. USA is not determined to Strike Syria. While President Obama deems military action in Syria necessary, he will not do without a congressional approval. Many congressional leaders are against intervention in Syria. So until the politicking is done, we don't know what decision US will take. Knowing USA it will most likely vote in favor of military action, but still one can't pass high probability as given fact.
3. There is no proof as to who ordered the never gas attack. However, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that a nerve gas attack civilians took place in Syria. It was this attack that made made many countries consider military action.

^All knows whats the reason behind Obama's U- Turn, the other thing is, Obama may be looking for a way out after painting himself in a corner with the red line comment.

I am not denying the grave errors made by US foreign policy in the past decade. I do not condone the war in Iraq. But irrespective of Obama's flip flopping or US mistakes, facts are facts and false statements are false statements.

No Other Country is with USA - FALSE.
- France and Turkey decided well before USA

USA wants to Destroy Syria - FALSE
- US course of action is undetermined. Everything else is an ASSUMPTION

There is no proof of using Chemical Weapons - FALSE
- There is ample proof that someone used a nerve gas on civilians

My point is criticize USA all you want. But you don't have to use LIES to do it. Criticize based on FACTS.

Obama backed out of the red line statements - FACT
UK voted not to take action in Syria - FACT
The culprit behind the nerve gas attack is uncertain - FACT
USA has an overtly aggressive and intruding foreign policy - FACT

There is also a temptation to compare Iraq, Libya and Syria. However, each is a unique situation that must be treated in its own merit. Questions we need to ask ourselves though are -

If a regime is oppressive, and the civilians revolt for freedom, and the regime retaliates with inhuman oppression and violence - what is the role and responsibilities of the other sovereign nations of the world? What is the right thing to do - interfere and support those who fight for freedom? Or ignore it - let people fight their own battles? And what if an oppressive regime crushes the voice of the people?

Most sovereign democratic nations today once upon a time themselves revolted against an oppressive regime. It is a tricky catch-22 choice.

Ah, Hades so this is how we will dance tonight, here's my take on your Facts!

Nobel peace prize laureate Obama should at least once prove that he has done/is doing something for the world peace😕.. using military force isn't exactly in line with peace keeping efforts.

Vladimir Putin has rejected US intelligence claims that Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons in Syria. it would be "utter nonsense" for government troops to use such tactics in a war it was already winning... ""That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States,"" Putin...US intelligence reports are not always right... there is political agenda behind this. Did the people of this world vote on this? Did the nations of the U.N. come together and pass some law that gave certain countries the authority to play world policeman?The answer is negative and it shows the profound lawlessness of the action that the US is about to embark and the ones that it has already carried out in the near past (Many of whom based upon groundless reasons. Thus even if the US is a global cop, it is most certainly rogue)...

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Ah, Hades so this is how we will dance tonight, here's my take on your Facts!

So, like many ,I lend my ear to Prez O , what caught my eye most was this-"I am with the machine that was in place before I came to power and will always be with the machine". This machine is the foreign policy of America which is based on the military-industrial complex , which no President , present , past or future can ever change and which unfortunately has not changed with the times.

War on Syria has disintegrated the North Block, barring France or Turkey( who maybe the only one with a legit role in this screenplay) , rest have put their foot down, joining the chorus for the legitimizing the war with a UN mandate or popular public opinion. This is a fact that someone in Obama administration needs to address again. If I recall, McCain categorically mentioned taking action if the red line (use of chemical weapons), even then shying away from a no-air zone over Syria.You may not treat Libya, Iraq Afghanistan or Lebanon in the same space, even I won't suggest that but the fact remains all these areas continue to remain as unstable as before the US intervention or some even more. Lebanon was bombarded by Israel and the statement from the White House by the eminent Rice mentioned "pangs ( the bloodshed of civilians) " before the creation of " New Middle-East", which in fact turned out to be a consequence of the inauguration of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Of course the Syrian crisis is affecting the whole of ME but even the ferocious US supporters point towards the real and ground realities which indicate more instability and genocide for civilians in a Post war scenario. The local Govt has erred beyond forgiveness but this is the right moment to get UN and atleast work towards achieving a ceasefire for now. I believe a congregation was proposed in Switzerland, which lacked the support of the Western Block. The point is there has been no concrete proof determining which side used the chemical weapons. This makes war a very flimsy proposition as of now. Another view is that, similarity in the situation of Syria with that of Egypt , Congo and many other ME nations. The civilians in these countries are also been massacred in thousands , so just coz there was more a bullet in the chest or a bomb in the backyard case , they get excluded from the US services. And yes I am aware about the more gruesome or heinous perception of CWS. The fact is the world is not just satisfied by " I know who got the weapons" story of US. Another reason for being cautious is war might increase the proliferation of Al-Qaeda in the region.

I might again seem like seeking too much from a body which is loosing credibility before you can even spell the word, but UN and the general assembly should have the last word on the foreign intervention in assisting of a regime change. We just cannot pick and choose the conflicts. We all can waltz around the theoretician of it , the local and real time scenario is far removed from our reasoning. For world peace, a broader , more effective and impartial UN is the need and for that US has to take a back seat. By not seeking the International mandate, it is undermining UN and creating a very polarized world opinion. I might be ignorant here but cite me one recent example where US intervention has reduced bloodshed, nullified human atrocities and provided peace to the region. I rest my case seeking that noble deed!

Contrary to the popular belief, US foreign policy has not been static. But that is irrelevant.

I'm not a supporter of US foreign policy. I don't agree with most of US intervention. My problem is only when people criticize USA based on presumptions and falsities. Also international politics is a "gray" area. USA may not self serving and selfish in their foreign policy, but painting USA as completely "black", a villainous entity is not fair either. Also the truth of the matter is that any country that has the wealth and might to be a military might will act big brother. Most of Europe did it during the era of colonization. Soviet Russia did it when they had clout. US does it now when they have the power. Tomorrow, should India be an economic and military power, I doubt it would be the benevolent Gandhian pacifist.

Specifically focusing on the Syria situation.

1) There is a Catch-22 USA faces. There is a good amount people in the world who thinks USA is a big evil f**k up and should just keep their nose out of other's business. Very valid and wise considering the disasters of past interventions. But there is a good amount of people in the world including Syrian civilians who want US to intervene. The argument being if you intervened for selfish reasons in Iraq, you have the obligation to intervene on moral grounds for us.

There is a significant push for US action within the Middle Eastern region itself http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html?_r=0

So taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes at the drop of a hat, Not taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes only for selfish reasons.

So you see damned if you do, damned if you don't.

2) The nerve gas situation is tricky. There is no proof on who called the attack. It was a year ago when Obama said chemical weaponry would be the red line causing US intervention. So the nerve gas could have been used by anyone who wants US to intervene. A recently revealed interesting fact is that a UK company maybe selling chemical weaponry to the Syrian government.

Personally, I think it is time for USA to just withdraw and let the Muslim League who are concerned about Syrian civilians come to their aid. In my view the consequences of intervening is far worse than not intervening .

There is absolutely no US military intervention that has not made things worse in the region. However, can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that things actually could have been peaceful without US intervention. For nations like Russia and China where no one dare question the government we see human rights violations escalate each day and the coverage is muffled and muted. Unless we have a way to turn back time and prevent intervention, we don't have any conclusive evidence that the countries would actually be better off. Without intervention we could potentially have seen massive civil war and genocide, if not now but eventually in the distant future.

Also US foreign policy is not limited to military intervention. There are government run foreign policy arms like USAID and Peace Corps. While the percentage of military expenditure is shameful and the amount of military intervention shocking, the fact also is that no other nation has as many dedicated humanitarian branches as the USA.

OH my Hadey, you do such a wonderful number, bring this fun on BA, na!

^^
Impartial power is somewhat idealistic. It requires a status quo. As long as one or more nations have the power and wealth, things will be tilted in one direction.

As for USA, unfortunately, since Iraq it has embroiled itself in a domino affect. Perhaps one could even say since the Cold War or World War.

The best thing we can do is view things as pragmatic as possible. US is the evil destroyer or US is the benevolent savior as both incorrect views. In the case of Syria, one cannot focus on USA alone. You have to look at everyone - Middle East, Syria, US Allies, Syria allies to see how the plays are shaping. Too many people see it as a binary choice surrounding USA only.