You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Syria will be the same on Iraq?

U.S. President Barack Obama on Saturday said he had decided the United States should strike Syrian government targets in response to a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, but he would seek a congressional vote. The following is the full text of his remarks in the White House Rose Garden:

“Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.
What is being more and more and more clear is that USA has a total disrespect to international law and UN. They don't care to have UN agreement or not. Just look to the last 30 years of USA wars (yes all of them are wars with lots and lots of humans dying, they are not "humanitarian interventions with targets taken down").

So if they get UN agreement is just fine and if they don't they don't care at all.

But they are such humanitarian guys these USA people.

IRAQ (2003)
Finishes with hundreds of thousands of iraqi killed, thousands of coallition soldiers killed and a lot more injured, millions displaced from their homes and a country in ruins with the same problem of three ethnicities that doesn't mix well with terrorist attacks each day in which tens of people are killed. USA decided their job is done.

LYBIA (2011)
With the aid of USA one of the 5 richest countries on the region before the civil war finishes with a country in ruins.

USA aid to overthrow dictator Mubarak finishes with a militar dictatorship and same chaos or worst.
Thanks Manfer .... totally agreed. I'm dead certain there are a large number of US citizens who would agree with you as well. I'm a bit speechless with what Obama's been doing. Goes against complete common sense, particularly if he is concerned about the safety and security of US citizens back home. Sort of just the thing he should NOT be doing. Make enemies in the Middle East.
Many nations (UN) of the world are concerned with war crimes when they are committed. Assuming that what has happened in Syria is a war crime then what is the solution? Was it a war crime?

Inaction is an action. History will say, two lowly instigators against world peace, insane-e the leader of Iraq who attacked his own people was captured, tried in a court and received the death penalty and another leader bin-laydam was killed and buried at sea.

It is not an easy decision, as to who will be put on an arrest list for war crimes. Perhaps in some cases the leaders should be the first to be dealt with, immediately, as many of the every day fighters just follow a leader.

There are people that think there should be little or no involvement with Syria including the Syrian people. Keeping the peace and not allowing the spread of war like movements is not an easy task.
Bluedoll wrote:
Many nations (UN)

You can't say "many nations (UN)" because that doesn't make sense at all. UN is an organization whose actual members are all countries of the world with minor exceptions (Vatican City, Taiwan and Kosovo I think). Some nations are just some nations.

All the nations are concerned about international crimes and those kind of issues are meant to be resolved at the UN.

What is not fine is that a country, USA, decides to resolve the issues unilaterally or with the complacency of a little amount of allies and very few times with the complacency of the UN. (not to mention with false pretensions sometimes).

It is very easy for them to go arround the world aiding to overthrow dictators (the ones they don't like) and then raise the flag of freedom and democracy. Many times the same dictators they aided to rise to power or to rule. Hypocrites.

Judge yourself about the supposed humanitarian job by US on their recent humanitarian wars. I would call that humanitarian, no way.
What are you talking about? Is this, an exercise in defined accuracy at grammar school? I don’t mind someone pointing out my grammar mistakes but it seems to me that there must be some point being made other than grammar? While we on the subject of grammar, why not get someone to change the title of this thread. I think it was meant to be ... Syria will be the same as Iraq?

What I wrote certainly does make sense. I simply put (UN) United Nations in brackets in the sentence to indicate one "source" of concern.

Some resolutions do get brought to the table at the UN. The United Nations does have influence in the world but it by no means is the controlling body of the world unless you tell me it is the New World Order government that we have been hearing about so much in sci-fi novels. Manfer, you say things are meant to be resolved at the UN. The UN has done some great things but it is not the do all end all.

Counties do act independently all the time and Syria is one of them. If they decide to use chemical weapons on their own population including children, they just do so without consulting the UN.

If you read over my post that you quoted on, you will find that I did not mention if I was supporting the United States of America or not in it's actions. If you want me to pass judgement on a country, I might consider it but for now I am more focused on what is happening in the world and not interested in going off on some hate campaign against the USA or Obama or defending it in some debate.

I would rather look at the issues at hand and discuss them intelligently. If I see this happening, I might decide to come back into this thread.
I repeat United Nations are composed by all countries. And that's why makes no sense if you say some countries and you put United Nations into brackets. Decisions of one country or some countries has nothing to do with the United Nations.

United Nations is not any organization to rule the world but is the only legitimate on my opinion to deal with international issues of this kind.

It is obvious that USA can do whatever they want as any other country, in their own territory. Should not be the same when they are talking about taking war actions against sovereign nations (unless that other nation has started any war action against them).

And that is what they are talking about and even when there is a UN investigation taking place about the ALLEGED Syrian chemical attack. As always USA say they have enough evidence themselves but they don't want to show those evidences. They say this time they have total evidence and they don't want to repeat the same mistake they made with their false Iraq evidences on 2003. Curiously enough they have showed evidences to Russia (Lavrov) and were refused so they must not be so definitive evidences.

And I want to repeat that all countries of the world are concerned of international crimes. But it seems lately (it is going for too long in my honest opinion) one country has decided they are superior to any other, morally or I don't know exactly in what sense they thing they are superior, to say everybody in the world what to do, and who must rule each and every country in the world.

It is quite curious how the whole world is in peace almost all the time but one country which is in constant conflict with a large amount of the world (when it is not with a country it is other).
Bluedoll wrote:
If they decide to use chemical weapons on their own population including children, they just do so without consulting the UN.
Right, but here's the thing BD. We're still searching for those famous WMDs in Iraq that the US had used as an excuse to invade Iraq and kill a few thousand people and completely destroy what structure had existed at the time of Saddam Hussein!!!! What difference was there really in what Sadam Hussein had done and the US? Both killed huge numbers of people. And there was a UN investigation involved in that too! And after the deed was done, those weapons of mass destruction were no where to be found. Ditto the use of chemical weapons. Very easy to panic people with massive media propaganda, similar to the weapons of mass destruction scare in Iraq. Obama and his Government cronies who are working on this war are specialists in manipulating public opinion. That is how they got into office. I for one don't believe chemical weapons are being used by Assad and his military. If they do in fact exist, I'd think it more likely that they have been deployed by either the rebels or maybe even the US (backing the rebels) in order to create a US war against Assad. That would make more sense to me. I just can't believe that Assad, a very highly educated man and a qualified medical doctor, would use chemical weapons to kill people. From a common sense point of view, he'd know exactly what the consequences would be of that. From a sophistication point of view, just does not fit his education. I'd also have thought the Russians would have known immediately if Assad had been guilty of chemical warfare, and would by now have sided with the Americans if Assad had been guilty. I really smell a huge rat here.

I agree with that the United Nations doesn't have much clout, but then I don't think they were created to have clout. They're supposed to be a peace keeping force and not supposed to get involved in war. I don't think the really serious decisions affecting decisions of war are made at the United Nations. More like the equivalent of the Board of Governors, issuing warnings and statements to the press. Some of what the UN does does have merit, and there is definitely value in its aid programs and peace keeping exercises. I don't think however the UN can play a meaningful role in resolving the crisis in Syria at this stage of the conflict there.
@deanhills @manfer
At this time I have to withdrawn and say that perhaps I am misinformed! What can we believe with so many contradictions? The news today tells us one thing and tomorrow it can be something else. Absolute proof never seems to come forward. In the end, it is war that is always consistent, no body ever wins. Crying or Very sad
based on the report i have seen on TV. Syria is proven use chemical weapons. Syrian President will not step down because of money only. They kill people just for money interest what kind of person he is. Killing his own syrian nation..
Bluedoll wrote:
@deanhills @manfer
At this time I have to withdrawn and say that perhaps I am misinformed! What can we believe with so many contradictions? The news today tells us one thing and tomorrow it can be something else. Absolute proof never seems to come forward. In the end, it is war that is always consistent, no body ever wins. Crying or Very sad
True! I think it's all about self-interest. I'm above average news-averse right now as I believe we are being lied to most of the time. I very rarely check the news these days. As most of the news is mass owned. For example, I recently discovered a Kuwait station on my Nilesat TV Satellite here in the UAE, that does news in English. Content totally different from Al Jazeera and BBC about the exact same war and focus different. Like watching something completely different happening. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying the truth has so many faces these days, we can't know what it is.

A few months ago I was hitching a lift here where I live with someone from Syria, who gave me a total different view of what was going on. He's one of the minority Christians there. It jolted me. Ever since then I've become very cynical when I see news reports like the one about chemical warfare. It has that old weapons of mass destruction theme written all over it again. We've been there, we've done that. Hence my surprise as well that Obama's buying into it (or using it for a hidden agenda?)). He is probably being cajoled into it by large mega corporations who are in the business of war like supplying armaments, or oil corporations, we probably will never know what the real truth is behind the facade. I'm sure however it is self-interest with very little genuine interest in the people of Syria.
Related topics
gazza withdraw
Europeans and Americans, your thoughts on "Eurabia"
The justification for war
Civilian Casualties in Iraq...
Justification for War in Iraq
Anti-Saddam tendancy of our president is a good thing.
Why is the USA in Iraq?
President bush
The Middle East Conflict
Did you convert?
Dozens die in Turkey border clash
Faster Rise of A Civilization
Ho are the Syrian rebels/fighters
Bomb Syria to help out or...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.