The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

A forum for the respectful exchange of views on thought-provoking topics, whether sexuality-related or otherwise; please read the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Strider » 7th January, 2017, 10:59 am

George wrote:You see Callum that was going so well until the "Your [sic] the stupid one mate", but hey, you tried.

Interestingly, yes, the Saudi's do sponsor a significant amount of terrorism. They do, yes, build mosques. However.... Iran poses a far greater threat to the world considering its lack of diplomacy, nuclear program, and funding to various organisations. And whilst you might not consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be terorrists [sic], they are.


It was Dmitzi who started the personal attacks, not me, I was just responding.

But it's OK for Israel to have nukes is it? And America and Britain? We have very different views regarding the world. To me, it's the US which is posing the greatest threat. Last time I checked, Iran didn't invade and de-stabilise the Middle East. And never forget that the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation is the USA, and they used them twice. So remove the rose-tinted spectacles.

And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people. Hezbollah is aiding Syria in it's fight against a terrorist insurgency. Hamas is fighting Israel.
User avatar
Strider
Veritas vos liberabit
 
Posts: 227
Likes received: 6
Joined: 30th August, 2016, 3:50 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 7th January, 2017, 5:29 pm

Strider wrote:I think you'll find that the #1 state sponsor of terrorism is Saudi Arabia.

They're not particularly nice guys and have been found to have ties to Islamic terror organisations. However their links to terror is FAR less direct and expansive than that of Iran. I never once said I particularly liked Saudi Arabia by the way.
Strider wrote:I don't consider Hamas or Hezbollah to be terrorist organisations either.

Why? Is it because they mainly kill Jews or Israelis?
I hate to break it to you but terrorism is terrorism; regardless of the race, nationality, ethnicity, creed, religion etc of the victims.
Both Hezbollah and Hamas are considered terrorists by all major international bodies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah ... e_movement & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas).
Any group who carries out suicide bombings and indiscriminately fires rockets at civilians is a terrorist organization.
Strider wrote:And the Kurds definitely aren't.

Not all Kurds are terrorists. Not at all. But many Kurdish groups in Syria have links the the PKK; a terrorist organization which has carried out many attacks on innocent Turkish civilians. My point is that the Kurds aren't the angels they are painted by the media to be. Many of them are every bit as violent and theocratic as the rest of the groups in Syria.
Strider wrote:Iran is a much more democratic and free country than Saudi Arabia.

Possibly? Mussolini's Italy was a much more democratic and free country than Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean that facist Italy is a force for good; however.
Strider wrote:You're the stupid one mate.

Whatever you say, hun.
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 129
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 7th January, 2017, 5:59 pm

Strider wrote:But it's OK for Israel to have nukes is it? And America and Britain?

Israel, America, and Britain DO NOT WANT TO USE THEIR NUKES AND WOULD ONLY USE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. Iran on the other hand has publicly threatened to 'wipe' another country 'off the map'. One simply does not allow such a country access to nuclear weapons!
You know, it's almost as if you want a second holocaust!
Strider wrote:Last time I checked, Iran didn't invade and de-stabilise the Middle East.

Because funding terrorist organizations and brutal dictators *totally* isn't destabilising? Have you not looked at the news about Yemen lately? The devastation caused by the Houthis group (and Saudi Arabia) is disgusting and was sparked off by Iran funding said group in the first place.
The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is one of the worst of the 21st century (arguably just as much as Syria's humanitarian crisis) and was all essentially sparked by an Iranian-backed overthrow of the democratically elected government of Yemen.
Strider wrote:And never forget that the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation is the USA, and they used them twice. So remove the rose-tinted spectacles.

This decision wasn't made lightly. It was just seen as the lesser of two evils compared to sending in an invasion force.
No-one in America was particularly happy or gleeful that civilians died. The two cities that were bombed were major industrial/military targets. No-one in America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were aiming to kill as many civilians as possible.
Please watch this video for more information. The bombing of Japan wasn't carried out due to a hatred of the Japanese people just for existing.

Strider wrote:Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people.

Hamas regularly attempt to drive vehicles into crowds of innocent civilians. People have been killed before but the reason it doesn't succeed as much as it does in Europe is because the security there is better prepared and equipped.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah routinely fire rockets INDISCRIMINATELY at CIVILIANS. They also carry out suicide bombings ('martyrdom') against mainly CIVILIANS. And stab CIVILIANS. They're defined as terrorists by all major international organisations.
Strider wrote:Hezbollah is aiding Syria in it's fight against a terrorist insurgency.

True. But that doesn't make them not terrorists themselves. They've done plenty of nasty stuff that's definitely terrorism.
Strider wrote:Hamas is fighting Israel.

So firing rockets indiscriminately and carrying out suicide bombings of shopping malls, restaurants, nightclubs etc is considered an act of warfare? It is a blatant war crime and act of terror to DELIBERATELY target civilians. When Israel kills civilians it is always collateral damage (often aided by Hamas' usage of human shields); when Hamas kill civilians it's a deliberate attempt to murder civilians and is therefore an act of terror/a war crime.
The religion/ethnicity/nationality of the victims doesn't change a thing. Terror is terror.
What you are saying would be synonymous with an Imam or something saying "the Orlando Nightclub attack wasn't an act of terror because it killed gay people".
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 129
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 8th January, 2017, 4:38 am

Help I've found myself on the same side of an argument as Dmitzi, what is this? But seriously he made many wonderful points.

I would like to start by saying: I dislike both Iran and Saudi Arabia (though I find myself more sympathetic of Iran under Hassan Rouhani). Both have appalling human rights records, extreme Islamic fundamentalist views and have ties to terrorism.

Strider wrote:I think you'll find that the #1 state sponsor of terrorism is Saudi Arabia.

Okay, so there is a difference between a state government sponsoring terrorism and citizens of a country funding terrorism. The government of Iran has been accused - and proven - to have had its hand in many terror attacks across the world. There has definitely been a decrease in attacks since the rise of the Rouhani government, the support it provides to Hezbollah and Hamas to carry out attacks against Israel is still strong.

Saudi Arabia's government has never been proven to have supported terrorism directly or indirectly. It is considered an open secret that members of the Saudi royal family provide support to groups with similar ideology - like al-Qaeda and Daesh - but the government vermantly opposes these groups. And while they share very similar ideologies, groups like al-Qaeda loath and despise Saudi Arabia for aligning itself with the Great Satan - America. Saudi Arabia is said to be the largest source of funds, it is not necessarily funding groups itself.

Strider wrote:I don't consider Hamas or Hezbollah to be terrorist organisations either.

Let's begin with Lebanon-based militia Hezbollah shall we. Hezbollah - which is funded by Iran - has carried out the following:

The 1982-1983 Tyre headquarters bombings; The blowing up of a van filled with explosives in front of the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans and Lebanese in 1983; The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing of the U.S. Marine and French 'Drakkar' barracks which killed 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers; The 1983 Kuwait bombings in collaboration with the Iraqi Dawa Party; The 1984 United States embassy annex bombing, killing 24 people; The hijacking of TWA flight 847 holding the 39 Americans on board hostage for weeks in 1985 and murder of one U.S. Navy sailor; The Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992.; The bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina killing twenty-nine people in 1992; The bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina killing 95 people in 1994. Hezbollah claimed responsibility; The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack, killing 21 people, in Panama; The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria.

Hezbollah has also fired hundreds of rockets into Israel across the Israel-Lebanon border which it basically controls, and is also hell-bent on destroying Israel, as it stated in its manifesto in 1985: "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration." It is also believed that Hezbollah was behind the assassination of the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri in 2005 - at the direction of Iran.

If that doesn't sound like the work of a terrorist organisation to you, I have serious questions about your definition of terrorism.

Secondly, Hamas. This one is a little bit more difficult because Hamas has two wings - the radical political wing that controls Gaza and Legislative Council of the Palestinian National Authority; and the military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. I would attach the list of their attacks against Israel, but there are a lot of them and way too many to put here, so please refer to this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Di ... li_targets

And of course, this is not to mention all the wars between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the IDF that have occurred over the years. Such as the 2008-09 Gaza War, the 2012 Gaza crisis, the 2014 Gaza War, all of which form part of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza since 2006 after Ariel Sharon announced Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

Strider wrote:It's the Saudi's who fund the building of the extremist Wahabbi mosques here in Britain and Europe. Iran is a much more democratic and free country than Saudi Arabia.

Again, not necessarily the government, and more members of the Royal family (yes what is the difference?) that provide the support and funds.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Iran is on the way to becoming a more democratic and free country - and under Rouhani it certainly wants to. But convincing the radical Shia clerics who hold the real power to surrender that and allow for "Westernisation" or generally modernisation is never going to happen under the current Ayatollah.

Strider wrote:But it's OK for Israel to have nukes is it? And America and Britain?

Ahhh no. Israel ISN'T allowed to have nuclear weapons. And while its an open secret that they do, they have never admitted it and maintain a policy of "nuclear ambiguity", never confirming nor denying the existence of their program.

Under the NPT only 5 states are allowed to possess nuclear weapons - the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. India, Pakistan and Israel are forbidden from possession and yet they do. India is considered to be the "de-facto 6th weapon state" because they've got a stable, democratic government with a healthy economy. Same cannot be said for Pakistan, and Israel will never confirm nor deny.

And the P5 weapon states have a long-standing understanding, and that is mutually assured destruction. No one is ever going to risk conflict coming to a nuclear showdown that results of hundreds of millions of deaths.

Strider wrote:Last time I checked, Iran didn't invade and de-stabilise the Middle East.

Iran and Saudi Arabia's proxy conflict is fuelling instability in the Middle East. Iran backs the Houthis in Yemen, while the Gulf Cooperation Council backs the globally-recognised Hadi government. Neither side is exactly favourable in this conflict honestly.

Saudi backed moderate and extremist rebels in Syria, while Iran is Assad's lifeline - more so than Russia.

In 2011-12, Iran fuelled unrest in Bahrain; in 2015 an Iranian weapon shipment to Bahrain was intercepted - it was later discovered to be a delivery to a terrorist group with links to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

And of course Iran's actions in Iraq and Lebanon - let's not forget those.

Strider wrote:And never forget that the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation is the USA, and they used them twice. So remove the rose-tinted spectacles.

The USA made an awful decision under awful circumstances. If you believe that the decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken lightly, then you need to brush up on your history.

Strider wrote:Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people. Hamas is fighting Israel.

Please refer to above.
Last edited by TheBrunswickian on 8th January, 2017, 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2857
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Lightbringer » 8th January, 2017, 7:18 am

I think I can shed some light on Iran's situation.

Before Iran's revolution, The US, Britain and Israel meddled the shit out of Iran and literally stole Iran's natural resources behind absurd "deals" that barely benefit Iran itself. The revolution was a backlash towards this type of attitude, but there was still hope for mending relations. But the USA made it impossible by attempting a coup in Iran right after its revolution which failed miserably and it was one of US's biggest embarrassments. Not only they were outplayed, it was a political disaster to get caught like that red handed.

Later Saddam invaded Iran for no reason other than power display and to show his tyranny, he was openly given support and weapons by the US and west and Saddam used most disgusting weapons of mass destruction and chemicals on Iranians. To this day the veterans of that war still suffer the consequences. It was after this war where skeptical feelings turned into hate and it started to grow.

I don't particularly take a side in Israel-Palestine conflicts, but I do have some opinion, like Israel should exist, but numerous times it has taken things too far. Same for Iran, I think the west has treated Iran terribly and it needs to acknowledge that. The first stones were thrown by the west.

On Numerous occasion Israel has attacked Iran's cyber security, their leaders have insulted Iranian people (not just leaders, that's what important) and called their suffering under sanctions justified and satisfying. So even when the most liberal leader possible gets to power in Iran (Rouhani) he promotes good relation with every country in the world, except Israel. This is no longer about religion at all, there are Jews living in Iran peacefully with no one bothering them. They are Jews but they do not support Israel. The people are angry with Israel and its getting worse every year.

Everyone know its Iran who is absolutely hindering Israel's plan in the area, giving gigantic amount of resources and funding to anyone who opposes Israel. Lebanon officially thanked Iran publicly after successfully defending itself against Israel. Iran has the world largest natural resources, (2nd biggest Gas after Russia, and 2nd biggest oil after Saudi Arabia, which overall makes Iran the owner of world's largest natural resources) So it will continue to do it and increase its relations with anyone it can. As of now Iran's relations with Russia and China are quite good, much better than west's relations with them.

Even without nuclear aspect, Iran is the indisputable power in the middle east. Its the center of Shia Islam, which has much lesser terror attacks to its name and and no one has fought ISIS as mich as Shia Muslims have. Iran is currently attacking ISIS in Iraq and has moved its armies to the border. From a western viewpoint, if we want to choose a side among Muslims and not just antagonize every single one of them, Iran wins every single time. It's people are quite used to the concept of secularism and liberty, even if they don't have it right now.

Iran's government system is quite advanced and in fact its a marvel of democracy give how they have established a democracy within theocracy without hindering democracy at all. Will of the people affects every corner of their government and the people would be open to negotiations. Iranian's government may have assisted some campaigns against Israel which may count as terrorism, but there has been no terrorist individual in history with Iranian heritage and name.
User avatar
Lightbringer
Member
 
First name: Lucas
Posts: 363
Likes received: 19
Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Country: Germany (de)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 8th January, 2017, 11:55 am

Strider wrote:Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38546740
Wrong, yet again.
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 129
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Lightbringer » 8th January, 2017, 12:53 pm

Dmitzi wrote:
Strider wrote:Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38546740
Wrong, yet again.


Your own source says he was aligned with the ISIS and no mention of Hamas.
User avatar
Lightbringer
Member
 
First name: Lucas
Posts: 363
Likes received: 19
Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Country: Germany (de)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 8th January, 2017, 2:10 pm

Lightbringer wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:
Strider wrote:Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38546740
Wrong, yet again.


Your own source says he was aligned with the ISIS and no mention of Hamas.

It's all the same hatred and is linked. Hamas has went in cahoots with other terror organizations before; and as of now it's only an alleged link with IS.
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 129
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Lightbringer » 8th January, 2017, 2:51 pm

Dmitzi wrote:
Lightbringer wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:
Strider wrote:Hezbollah and Hamas aren't driving trucks into people or beheading people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38546740
Wrong, yet again.


Your own source says he was aligned with the ISIS and no mention of Hamas.

It's all the same hatred and is linked. Hamas has went in cahoots with other terror organizations before; and as of now it's only an alleged link with IS.


I'm not fully disagreeing with you, but the buzzword "terrorism" loses a lot of its meaning when there is open war. Most of the time its just war crime, and he did kill soldiers.
User avatar
Lightbringer
Member
 
First name: Lucas
Posts: 363
Likes received: 19
Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Country: Germany (de)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Oigo » 22nd January, 2017, 12:48 am

Ethan™ wrote:Because when liberals spend time constructing an educated response for 'differing opinions' they're often discarded with no justification other than 'I'm right'.

Lmao actually he posted a very well reasoned post, which I agree with, and was then rejected by liberals from having any kind of discussion about the topic at hand. But sure, we'll go with your explanation.

The West has no place intervening in Syria in this nation-building foreign policy. We have no sovereignty over what goes on in Syria. Not to mention, it is totally backwards to expend American lives in the process of trying to overthrow a foreign government. On top of that, any intervention would only escalate the situation in Syria, resulting in even more innocent lives being lost. If we intervene, the blood from these lives is on our hands. Most importantly, we just don't have the right. Syria is a sovereign nation, and we have no jurisprudence to determine how their head of state should be selected.
hellojwt wrote:he fiber poibts of ssarcasm wit and irony are wasted on your single brain cellt

Isaac wrote:ruined ones are by far the best
User avatar
Oigo
Really nigga?
 
Posts: 6794
Likes received: 23
Joined: 31st October, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Da Souf
Country: United States (us)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Jacketh » 7th April, 2017, 4:23 am

Bump. And I should probably update the thread title.

It seems possible a Coalition made up of mostly Western countries could be forged. Thoughts?
Image

ImageImageImage

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Jacketh
Admin
 
First name: Jack
Posts: 9925
Likes received: 548
Joined: 12th June, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: London
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 7th April, 2017, 7:47 am

Jacketh wrote:Bump. And I should probably update the thread title.

It seems possible a Coalition made up of mostly Western countries could be forged. Thoughts?

Well the current coalition striking Syria is made up of the US, UK, France, Australia and a few others. Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark are currently striking in Iraq only. If it came to taking down Assad, I could see the current main quartet currently striking Syria leading the charge with support from Turkey, Jordan, maybe Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. There is a chance that Israel will provide logistic support and unofficially be a member of the coalition. Frankly, as I've stressed a lot today, any intervention against Assad right now is politically and militarily inviable. Removing Assad won't change anything. The regime will put another man on the throne and the war will rage on until something comes to an end. The whole regime would have to topple, and the last two times we toppled regimes... well, we're still fighting those wars
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2857
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Strider » 7th April, 2017, 7:58 am

And what is Russia going to do if the west try and remove Assad? Russia is assisting Syria militarily, so any western coalition will be fighting the Russians as well.

And the last chemical attack in Syria back in 2013 which was blamed on the Government was actually perpetrated by the rebels, so unless there is concrete proof that it was Assad then I'm putting the blame on the rebels.
User avatar
Strider
Veritas vos liberabit
 
Posts: 227
Likes received: 6
Joined: 30th August, 2016, 3:50 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Pity » 7th April, 2017, 8:51 am

I still oppose military invervention into Syria, even if it is done with a coalition of Western countries. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia need to strategically work together to ensure Assad and his military oligarchs are removed from power by cutting off diplomacy and economic links.
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3078
Likes received: 485
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Ebsy » 7th April, 2017, 4:09 pm

I highly doubt there will ultimately be a coalition to topple Assad.
Will wrote:Eye contact is serious. Make sure you get tested for H-eye-V.
Thumper wrote:I've read washing machine manuals that aroused me more.
User avatar
Ebsy
EBay
 
Posts: 2681
Likes received: 37
Joined: 2nd June, 2012, 1:27 am
Location: Missouri

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Lightbringer » 9th April, 2017, 3:26 am

Its going to be hard, time consuming and expensive. But if UN fully cooperates and they learn from their mistakes in Iraq, it can work.
User avatar
Lightbringer
Member
 
First name: Lucas
Posts: 363
Likes received: 19
Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Country: Germany (de)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 9th April, 2017, 3:29 am

Lightbringer wrote:Its going to be hard, time consuming and expensive. But if UN fully cooperates and they learn from their mistakes in Iraq, it can work.

hahahahahahaha good joke
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2857
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Lightbringer » 9th April, 2017, 3:31 am

TheBrunswickian wrote:
Lightbringer wrote:Its going to be hard, time consuming and expensive. But if UN fully cooperates and they learn from their mistakes in Iraq, it can work.

hahahahahahaha good joke


The sad thing is, it is a joke.

It can work, but who is going to spend all that money and time and don't expect any personal returns? It can work when UN actually does what its suppose to do. Putting human life before human gain.

Its a joke because UN is a joke in its current state.
User avatar
Lightbringer
Member
 
First name: Lucas
Posts: 363
Likes received: 19
Joined: 16th September, 2016, 5:02 pm
Location: Italian vagabond on pilgrimage
Country: Germany (de)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 9th April, 2017, 10:19 am

Lightbringer wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
Lightbringer wrote:Its going to be hard, time consuming and expensive. But if UN fully cooperates and they learn from their mistakes in Iraq, it can work.

hahahahahahaha good joke


The sad thing is, it is a joke.

It can work, but who is going to spend all that money and time and don't expect any personal returns? It can work when UN actually does what its suppose to do. Putting human life before human gain.

Its a joke because UN is a joke in its current state.

The UN can't do what it is supposed to because of the UNSC veto power. That isn't the UN's fault, that is the fault of the P5. The UN should not cop the blame for its failures - the P5 should.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2857
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 11 guests