Is the conflict in Syria turning into a proxy war?

[Vovka]

(click to show/hide)

Well yeah. Remember what happened last time when US did send their army in?

you talk about the case when under false pretenses US moved their troops to destroy the president of the country, state, and country has become a breeding ground for terrorism?

[Tibe]

Oh you mean the president who invaded and wiped out Kuwait from the world map and was already despised and hated by the majority of the Middle-East and the Arabic League? The guy, who if actually did have nukes, would have not even thought for a second to actually use them. You do realise if Iraq actually got nukes, Saddam could have been potentially free to do whatever the hell he wants in the Middle-East?

[Butan]

ISIS has been painted as the ultimate evil enough that any country taking it up with them would be deemed as heroic, me thinks.

If they dont try its not as much as because they fear the people backlash (in that case, I think only anti-war people would mind. True they already make up a large number of persons) but because of political and financial reasons. Such as presidential elections, relationships between other countries involved in the conflict, and the cost of invading.

Also because the only country capable of doing so alone (without having to talk with other countries and arrange cooperative invasion) is the USA, and they have near to no moral credibility right now.
If you want USA to do any more serious action, vote Trump 

[Overdriven]

There's a reason David Cameron in the UK doesn't get a huge amount of support for involvement in Syria. People are fed up after Iraq and Afghanistan. No one wants to be involved in yet another shit storm in the middle east and don't see it as our place. Particularly after the bull shit justifications for Iraq. The sad thing is Syria and fighting ISIS is actually a far better reason to involve ourselves there than the mythical WMDs.

[Rhekimos]

There's a reason David Cameron in the UK doesn't get a huge amount of support for involvement in Syria. People are fed up after Iraq and Afghanistan. No one wants to be involved in yet another shit storm in the middle east and don't see it as our place. Particularly after the bull shit justifications for Iraq. The sad thing is Syria and fighting ISIS is actually a far better reason to involve ourselves there than the mythical WMDs.

They've really been crying wolf a lot.

And now the problem is in their own backyard:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Oh you mean the president who invaded and wiped out Kuwait from the world map and was already despised and hated by the majority of the Middle-East and the Arabic League? The guy, who if actually did have nukes, would have not even thought for a second to actually use them. You do realise if Iraq actually got nukes, Saddam could have been potentially free to do whatever the hell he wants in the Middle-East?

Oh you mean the president who took power tanks to the complicity of CIA.

Writing in his memoirs of the 1963 coup, long time OSS and CIA intelligence analyst Harry Rositzke presented it as an example of one on which they had good intelligence in contrast to others that caught the agency by surprise. The overthrow "was forecast in exact detail by CIA agents." "Agents in the Ba’th Party headquarters in Baghdad had for years kept Washington au courant on the party’s personnel and organization, its secret communications and sources of funds, and its penetrations of military and civilian hierarchies in several countries....CIA sources were in a perfect position to follow each step of Ba’th preparations for the Iraqi coup, which focused on making contacts with military and civilian leaders in Baghdad. The CIA’s major source, in an ideal catbird seat, reported the exact time of the coup and provided a list of the new cabinet members....To call an upcoming coup requires the CIA to have sources within the group of plotters. Yet, from a diplomatic point of view, having secret contacts with plotters implies at least unofficial complicity in the plot."

And was then provided with chemical and biological weapons by US:

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former U.S. policymakers shows that U.S. provided intelligence and logistical support, which played a role in arming Iraq in its war with Iran. Under the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, the U.S. authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous dual-use technology (items with both military and civilian applications), including chemicals which can be used in manufacturing of pesticides or chemical weapons and live viruses and bacteria, such as anthrax and bubonic plague used in medicine and the manufacture of vaccines or weaponized for use in biological weapons.

A report of the U.S. Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs concluded that the U.S. under the successive presidential administrations sold materials including anthrax, and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992. The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: "The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it's a devastating record."[10] According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.[11]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

And who's action were finally considered unacceptable when he was not serving western interest anymore. Welcome to the land of "human rights are our business when we have interests"

[Tibe]

And who's action were finally considered unacceptable when he was not serving western interest anymore. Welcome to the land of "human rights are our business when we have interests"

Yeah. Welcome to that land, or as in WORLD. Were you born yesterday, you french hippie?

You mean only US is the only nation that has self-interests? Oh you poor naive boy. Absolutely eeeeevery country on Earth is only after its own gain. And it kinda makes sense.  Why the fuck would countries politicians willingly just serve other people cause and waste their own resources, out of the kindness of their heart? Understand that my point was that Saddam had that shit coming long ago. Either way someone would have been forced to invade Iraq sooner or later. US just got to it first. For self-intrests sure. But dont come saying, Iraq was a happy place that only did good in the world, before the evil US invaded it.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

I mean that Irak was a happier place under Saddam than right now and that we should just let the people there deal with their own problem. When you act abroad without consideration of the people living there only dictated by your own interests, don't be surprised if you're hated and criticized.

And that people saying we need a new invasion right now, when half of the people living there are opposed to it http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e and that its precisely what Daech narrative of crusade needs, have shit in their eyes.

And those saying that it is to help poor refugees are either hypocrite or naive, as it will only make the conflict last longer and postpone the next islamist rebbellion.

[Oberyn]

Brokar has no idea what the opposition to the baathists even was. Just like all the dumb cunts whining that Britain "created" Saudi Arabia, completely ignoring that it was actually the most "modernist", "progressive" faction that won out in the end. That's how fucking sad the middle east and it's shit religion is. It was either insane religious fanatics or military dictators, or a combination of both. Still is, as Turkey's recent history, the most "secular" islamic country in the world, demonstrates. 

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Lol I am not the one crying "Saddam was a bad guy,  US was right to destitute him."

But anyway, I don't care if it had been a military dictator (could also have been nasserist or communist one who knows) or some fanatic instead, let them have what they want and then be pissed off at what they choose or happy with it. It is not our concern.

On the other thread you were saying "why should the west reform their religion?", I'm telling you "why should the west reform their governement?"

[Oberyn]

I agree with you, if it was up to me Europe would close it's borders to every muslim majority country. Sadly it's already been decided by the powers that be that european population decline isn't in accord with their plans (they might not even have enough new workers to pay for their pensions! Imagine such horror!).

http://i.imgur.com/LfZ0DUN.jpg

Look at that rat-faced limey bastard cunt smiling at the death of europe. We need fertile muslim wombs desperately you see, the fact that western women are freer and have less children is problematic, let's import more backwards third worlders who breed like fucking rabbits, it's apparently a genetic trait and not a cultural one. It would be deeply racist and badwrong to encourage the natives to have more children, like the lands and the countries belong to them anyways, european countries are for the entire planet. Just accept the inevitable, cunts like Overdriven already have.

[Overdriven]

Ha hardly. I'm opposed to population expansion but if it's to be a necessity I like the model that many Scandinavian countries take on. Denmark for example encourages young adults to have children with free child care and a whole host of other policies that are designed to support parents. Immigration is a bad way of doing it.

[Tibe]

But anyway, I don't care if it had been a military dictator (could also have been nasserist or communist one who knows) or some fanatic instead, let them have what they want and then be pissed off at what they choose or happy with it. It is not our concern.

The recordbreaking amount of homeless poor women and children hoarding the Western borders kinda turns it into our concern aswell m8. Because where the fuck do you think a bunch of people run to instantly when their homes get burned or some dictator rapes his own country?

How can you be so blind as to not start seeing that it turns out that it actually is our problem aswell? I thought so too aswell. "Whats the point, let the dictators in the Middle-East do whatever they want with their countries". How is it related to me? Well now it kinda turns out it is. You either fight the psychos in their land or you start arguing with the immigrants near at your own lands border. Pick an option. The third option is to make your own country so shit, nobody wants to migrate there.

On the other thread you were saying "why should the west reform their religion?", I'm telling you "why should the west reform their governement?"

Because again. The poor people infront of our borders kinda turn it viable. Their governments can turn the average peoples homes uninhabitable and they have to relocate.

Lol I am not the one crying "Saddam was a bad guy,  US was right to destitute him."

You should the the one crying that too. Because its an actually fact. The dude was an agressive retard, who, if given the chance to rule longer, would have ripped the middle-east to shreads(bigger or same shreads it is in currently) eventually. The Arab League knew it. US knew it.

[Leshma]

There's always an option to do it murican style. Create havoc everywhere, don't give a fuck about consequences of your actions, show middle finger to those who criticize your actions. So far, it's working flawlessly for them.

[Sir_Hans]

They've really been crying wolf a lot.

And now the problem is in their own backyard:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

This is what happens when the U.S. takes in about 80,000 refugees PER YEAR and then somehow convinces the majority of it's own people that reducing the number of refugees coming in would be unethical and unfair treatment towards muslims.