Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (85,965 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

RockStarNiko

Chemical weapon attack in Syria

Recommended Posts

Typhus
Yugoslavia was the only only country that liberated itself from Germany.

Hitler was more merciful than Stalin. My point stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
orbitalraindrops

I can see the logic behind you saying that if one nation wants to subjugate another then they need to be utterly ruthless. However as far as I'm aware any form of action against Syria will be classed as "Liberation" not subjugation. I doubt we intend to conquer and subdue the Syrian people. In fact I think the main reason for any involvement would be to allow the Syrian populace to go about there daily lives without being gassed and to topple a tyrant who is a possible threat to the West. The methods you suggest would be effective if we intended to gain territory and claim resources however I don't think any military intervention would be done for such reasons. In this day and age no nation can do that and be justified in the eyes of the U.N. It has to be humane. It has to be consented to. It must be done for the biggest possible gains and the least possible losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

@sivispacem: I wonder what your view on US politics is, and how according to you these "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" originated in US policy, and some examples of them. Because I am deeply skeptical about any moral motivation in US policy.

I think you misunderstand me. I never claimed categorically that the US stood for these values, though I'm sure that many Americans would see themselves as such. I was referring more generally to nations which pride themselves on upholding fundamental rights of this nature, and the dichotomy of the public's inability to see that these concepts transcend national boundaries. You can't really be a champion of "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" if you believe your ability to uphold them extends no further than your own borders.

I think part of upholding "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" is upholding international law and not being an outlaw state. That brings me to some other statements of you.

 

So, one one hand you have a flagrant violation of international law, and on the other a flagrant violation of international law. Worth pointing out to additional things here-interventions aren't necessarily illegal if the Security Council doesn't vote for them as nations have a right to conduct military action to defend their interests regardless)

 

Neither a unilateral or multilateral attack under any defined set of circumstances is against international law; the only decision of whether a military action violates law comes after the action and on agreement; such is the way the system works.

The UN Charter states that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42," which detail the preferred "measures not involving the use of armed force" and permit the Security Council to take further action if it finds such measures inadequate. The only exception is Article 51, which permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Apart from these exceptions, member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

 

BBC article on Rwandan genocide. As a brief summary, after the shooting down of an aircraft carrying moderate Hutu President Habyarimana, either by a Tutsi rebel group or by extremist Hutu elements (both theories have a great deal of traction), the Hutu-majority government effectively sponsored the mass murder of nearly 1 million ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu citizens

Genocide Watch article on the Bosnian genocide. Strong parallels with Syria in that it involved a military force receiving external support from a foreign power conducting crimes against humanity during an internal conflict amounting to a civil war.

 

Could foreign intervention prevented genocide in Rwanda? Possibly not, but it could certainly have limited it dramatically. Could foreign intervention have prevented genocide in Bosnia? Quite probably. Are the circumstances the same here? Not entirely, but in terms of civilian casualties I doubt a punitive strike against targets of strategic importance and the WMD-delivery capability of the Syria government (air force and rocket/ballistic missile forces) would in the long run be any more harmful than the net result of their continued use. Nice to see you missing my point as well, which was the apparent irony of people being very aware of infractions against what they perceive to be inalienable rights at home yet feeling compelled to wash their hands of any involvement protecting the same rights abroad because of the synthetic divisions of nationality and culture. But I can see that went well over several people's heads.

Ironically genocide in Rwanda could've been prevented by a lack of a foreign intervention. The Genocide was caused by a power struggle between two tribes that lived in a country that had borders set by western countries, and division of power to each tribe set by western countries.

 

And calling the war in Kosovo a genocide is an insult to Holocaust survivors and casualties. 2000 deaths before the bombing is the standard estimate.

 

Most casualties were after the bombing. So it's a very bad example to defend a Syrian invasion with.

Edited by gtaxpert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

 

Live.

 

I have a newfound disdain for Kerry.

Yeah, the guy's a real scumbag. Full of empty political talk and manipulation of facts. And he's so obvious. Anyone with half of brain can read him like an open book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

 

Live.

 

I have a newfound disdain for Kerry.

Yeah, the guy's a real scumbag. Full of empty political talk and manipulation of facts. And he's so obvious. Anyone with half of brain can read him like an open book.

He also can't help but contradict himself. First he keeps rambling about dead children, and how he can't imagine anyone could allow such horrors on children, only to later nullify that as a reason to vote pro intervention, by saying that strikes are only to make clear that governments who use chemical weaponry will face punishment, and won't further the civil war in any way shape or form.

 

The more that clown yells, the weaker the argument pro-syria-strike gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edward-Is-A-Flunky45
@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

United Nations= USA's command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

I don't think it's in the interest of the world for outlaw states like the United States to terrorize the world in order for them to further their interests.

 

It's interesting how you typify international law and the UN as 'an impotent facade', when it should be the spine of international justice, which it indeed isn't because the biggest source of terrorism in the world, US foreign policy, is indifferent to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

Part of me is surprised this issue has gotten so much armchair debate (mine is a blue recliner, something like a la-z-boy). What I feel Obama wants to do is something akin to what was already done in Libya and what Clinton did during the Balkan conflicts (and what he failed to do during Rwanda). As far as military actions go... it's pretty limited.

 

I do wish the Administration was more open with the case for action, and explaining exactly what happened, though, the usage of chemical weapons or other "WMDs" in a civilian area and ostensibly against a largely civilian population shouldn't go without remark and without response. I also wish the Administration would wait for a vote on a UN resolution. That way we could at least say the process happened and that we had a modicum of faith in international institutions.

 

But at the end of the day I do not oppose the limited military action, that as I understand it, would be focused on disabling Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. I also don't think that Congress will end up opposing it barring a revolt in the House of Representatives.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal
@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

I don't think it's in the interest of the world for outlaw states like the United States to terrorize the world in order for them to further their interests.

 

It's interesting how you typify international law and the UN as 'an impotent facade', when it should be the spine of international justice, which it indeed isn't because the biggest source of terrorism in the world, US foreign policy, is indifferent to it.

How things should work is irrelevant to reality. The idea that the current protocol of the UN Security Council has any real capacity to prevent mass human suffering is a Utopian fantasy. Though I can't necessarily agree with your theory that the US is the largest source of global terrorism, the very sentiment that the world isn't properly protected from the US kinda confirms that the UN Security Council is useless no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
How things should work is irrelevant to reality.

I hope you do not seriously mean this.

 

the very sentiment that the world isn't properly protected from the US kinda confirms that the UN Security Council is useless no?

Maybe it would be more useful if the most powerful country in the world, the United States, would stop their illegal terror in the Middle East for their oil interests and would start abiding international law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Showstopper 26
Part of me is surprised this issue has gotten so much armchair debate (mine is a blue recliner, something like a la-z-boy). What I feel Obama wants to do is something akin to what was already done in Libya and what Clinton did during the Balkan conflicts (and what he failed to do during Rwanda). As far as military actions go... it's pretty limited.

 

I do wish the Administration was more open with the case for action, and explaining exactly what happened, though, the usage of chemical weapons or other "WMDs" in a civilian area and ostensibly against a largely civilian population shouldn't go without remark and without response. I also wish the Administration would wait for a vote on a UN resolution. That way we could at least say the process happened and that we had a modicum of faith in international institutions.

 

But at the end of the day I do not oppose the limited military action, that as I understand it, would be focused on disabling Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. I also don't think that Congress will end up opposing it barring a revolt in the House of Representatives.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Congress is going to approve this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 

United Nations= USA's command.

 

Really? Because if that were true we'd have a UN authorization to attack Syria right now.

 

 

He also can't help but contradict himself. First he keeps rambling about dead children, and how he can't imagine anyone could allow such horrors on children, only to later nullify that as a reason to vote pro intervention, by saying that strikes are only to make clear that governments who use chemical weaponry will face punishment, and won't further the civil war in any way shape or form.

 

The more that clown yells, the weaker the argument pro-syria-strike gets.

 

What? How does that even remotely contradict anything? He's giving two different reasons to support his opinion to strike Syria. If I said I support legalizing Marijuana and give the two following reasons -

 

1) the government could regulate and tax it

2) children would find it harder to acquire marijuana since it would be taken off the streets and into the public market

 

Am I contradicting myself? No, I'm providing two reasons to support one thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Showstopper 26

If the US does do an airstrike, what's the earliest do you think it'll happen? Next week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
If the US does do an airstrike, what's the earliest do you think it'll happen? Next week?

Only the people in charge in the US can give you an estimate for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pizza Delivery Guy

Over 90% of the citizens do not want a strike or war against Syria. Damn near all the House of Representatives do. Know why? They aren't the ones that will be going to die overseas. They get to sit back and watch as the world crumbles around them and they continue.

 

Also, Obama wants to help out Syria? If he really cared, he would have done something a LONG time ago. And he's going to help out the citizens by bombing the country and inevitably killing more citizens. Real productive there, Mr. President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Showstopper 26
If the US does do an airstrike, what's the earliest do you think it'll happen? Next week?

Only the people in charge in the US can give you an estimate for that.

They're unfortunately not giving me answers. There's no timetable on any news. I did just read that they're testing blood/hair to see cause of death and that will take 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Over 90% of the citizens do not want a strike or war against Syria. Damn near all the House of Representatives do. Know why? They aren't the ones that will be going to die overseas. They get to sit back and watch as the world crumbles around them and they continue.

True. But more than 90% of the population isn't going there either now are they?

 

The reason they have such a different opinion than the population is because the amount of money they get for a campaign is decided on the basis of how much their ideas coincide with corporate interest. The reason they support bombing Syria is because it is in corporate interest. The Middle East needs to be politically controlled because of oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

United Nations= USA's command.

 

Really? Because if that were true we'd have a UN authorization to attack Syria right now.

 

 

He also can't help but contradict himself. First he keeps rambling about dead children, and how he can't imagine anyone could allow such horrors on children, only to later nullify that as a reason to vote pro intervention, by saying that strikes are only to make clear that governments who use chemical weaponry will face punishment, and won't further the civil war in any way shape or form.

 

The more that clown yells, the weaker the argument pro-syria-strike gets.

 

What? How does that even remotely contradict anything? He's giving two different reasons to support his opinion to strike Syria. If I said I support legalizing Marijuana and give the two following reasons -

 

1) the government could regulate and tax it

2) children would find it harder to acquire marijuana since it would be taken off the streets and into the public market

 

Am I contradicting myself? No, I'm providing two reasons to support one thing.

First he says what comes down to 'Do it for the childeren', only to later say what comes down to 'Our strikes won't help the childeren'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 

First he says what comes down to 'Do it for the childeren', only to later say what comes down to 'Our strikes won't help the childeren'.

 

Alright go ahead and not post anything substantive and just pull sh*t out of the sky in a veiled attempt to justify your continued nonsensical postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

I think part of upholding "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" is upholding international law and not being an outlaw state. That brings me to some other statements of you.

 

The UN Charter states that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42," which detail the preferred "measures not involving the use of armed force" and permit the Security Council to take further action if it finds such measures inadequate. The only exception is Article 51, which permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Apart from these exceptions, member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

International law is fundamentally governed by self-interest, though- which means it is inherently flawed. Multilateral military engagements are all well and good as long as the UN Security Council rubber-stamps them, but of course that isn't applicable if it is in the interest of one of the nations with a veto to reject an intervention, regardless of circumstance. Similarly, as I pointed out to GTAVanja, acts are only actually illegal under international law if they're decided to be illegal under international law. Numerous acts which appear illegal in the context of written international law have had no action taken against them- take for instance the complains the FR Yugoslavia made against NATO in the wake of the 1999 bombing of Belgrade- because of the complexity of requirements for cases to actually be examined. You also seem to forget that there have been at least two occasions so far in the conflict when NATO Article 4 has been invoked by Turkey in response to deliberate military attacks against Turkish soil conducted by Syrian forces. Plain and simple, they're both examples of armed attack, and given the current provisions of the UNSC NATO would have been within their power to continue military operations until the perceived threat to Turkish sovereignty was entirely eliminated- as you sure as hell wouldn't have seen "the Security Council [take] measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".

 

 

Ironically genocide in Rwanda could've been prevented by a lack of a foreign intervention. The Genocide was caused by a power struggle between two tribes that lived in a country that had borders set by western countries, and division of power to each tribe set by western countries.

That's a pretty tenuous claim which ignores the fact that both the German and Belgian colonisation of Rwanda did little more than maintain the established status quo between ethnic Tutsi and Hutu tribes.

 

 

And calling the war in Kosovo a genocide is an insult to Holocaust survivors and casualties. 2000 deaths before the bombing is the standard estimate.

I never referred to the Kosovo war as genocide. I referred to the Bosnian war as genocide, because it was. Or does government-sanctioned ethnic cleansing resulting in the killing of at least 10,000, and expulsion of around 30,000, individuals based solely on their religious and ethnic identity not meet whatever arbitrary definition of genocide you've decided to apply in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

Surely military action by the USA in Syria would result in the death of more innocent people than what the chemical attacks caused. I'm no expert but their "precision strikes" probably take out entire city blocks. It's absurd that we're supposed to buy into all this nonsense about justice. Our governments have shown that they cannot be trusted whenever they suggest military action abroad. The Syrians are better off without our involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

Surely military action by the USA in Syria would result in the death of more innocent people than what the chemical attacks caused.  I'm no expert but their "precision strikes" probably take out entire city blocks.  It's absurd that we're supposed to buy into all this nonsense about justice.  Our governments have shown that they cannot be trusted whenever they suggest military action abroad.  The Syrians are better off without our involvement.

I'm unsure of the logic behind this statement. If you look at the two recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have to a greater or lesser extent been internal conflicts, total civilian casualties attributed to foreign military action have been between 15% and 25% depending on sources. Civilian casualties as a result of military intervention in Libya were even lower than this according to most estimates. Based on the figures from the last comparable intervention- Libya-civilians were about ten times as likely to be killed by the actions of the Libyan military than by foreign military strikes in the time during which the no-fly-zone was in force. I would be keen to see you quantify your assertion that foreign intervention would cause more collateral damage than the~3000 casualties resulting from both actual and reported chemical weapon attacks in the last year. Especially given that that figure is approximately one sixth of total civilian casualties in the entire twelve year military deployment of ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including those killed by the Afghan army, police, ISAF and insurgents.

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

 

Part of me is surprised this issue has gotten so much armchair debate (mine is a blue recliner, something like a la-z-boy). What I feel Obama wants to do is something akin to what was already done in Libya and what Clinton did during the Balkan conflicts (and what he failed to do during Rwanda). As far as military actions go... it's pretty limited.

 

I do wish the Administration was more open with the case for action, and explaining exactly what happened, though, the usage of chemical weapons or other "WMDs" in a civilian area and ostensibly against a largely civilian population shouldn't go without remark and without response. I also wish the Administration would wait for a vote on a UN resolution. That way we could at least say the process happened and that we had a modicum of faith in international institutions.

 

But at the end of the day I do not oppose the limited military action, that as I understand it, would be focused on disabling Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. I also don't think that Congress will end up opposing it barring a revolt in the House of Representatives.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Congress is going to approve this?

I think so, yes. The biggest obstacle I see is in the House of Representatives. The Tea Party members are pretty anti-interventionist. If the leadership can rein them in they'll pass it, if not there's a slight chance it could be used to topple Boehner in favor of Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader, but that's so remote it wouldn't be worth mentioning if it weren't 4 AM here and my textual inhibition hadn't gone to bed without me. flailing cock hammers in a vagina storm, it's 4 AM. I'm going to bed.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

Alright go ahead and not post anything substantive and just pull sh*t out of the sky in a veiled attempt to justify your continued nonsensical postings.

There you go again, you seem to be unable to answer without resorting to personal attacks. Did you even watch the Congressional hearing about Syria? At first Kerry was playing the 'moral obligation' card talking about the children , just to later nullify that statement by making clear that US intervention won't bring the civil war closer to an end, and that it only is to show Assad and the world, or more specifically North-Korea, Hezbollah and Iran that the usage of chemical weapons doesn't go unpunished and has severe consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
Alright go ahead and not post anything substantive and just pull sh*t out of the sky in a veiled attempt to justify your continued nonsensical postings.

There you go again, you seem to be unable to answer without resorting to personal attacks. Did you even watch the Congressional hearing about Syria? At first Kerry was playing the 'moral obligation' card talking about the children , just to later nullify that statement by making clear that US intervention won't bring the civil war closer to an end, and that it only is to show Assad and the world, or more specifically North-Korea, Hezbollah and Iran that the usage of chemical weapons doesn't go unpunished and has severe consequences.

You are aware that those two statements aren't actually contradictory, aren't you? I'd hope that was just an oversight on your part and not a deliberate attempt to create straw men from the arguments of someone who isn't here to clarify their statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

You are aware that those two statements aren't actually contradictory, aren't you? I'd hope that was just an oversight on your part and not a deliberate attempt to create straw men from the arguments of someone who isn't here to clarify their statements.

Affirmative, that was a slip on my side, note that I didn't go further on about it being contradictory for obvious reasons. I was just recapping, if you will, a part of his 'speech' that stood out to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel

This whole situation is ridiculous. So the international community doesn't care that Assad was killing thousands of his own people. No one did. But then Obama goes to say "well, if he uses chemical weapons, that's a red flag". And lo and behold that's exactly what happened a week later. No one said a damn thing when Israel did it. It's like a script to a terrible political thriller. Who's stupid enough to buy into this sh*t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

@GTAvanja

 

If it helps, polls illustrate it's only the minority who are brainless and susceptible enough to accept Obama's bollocks.

 

I only feel for the US Navy who are employed to follow his tyrannous orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.