The UN investigation into the 2013 chemical attack was in conclusive. Read when you want from that, but if you listen to refugees from the area theu all generally believe it was ISIS and why wouldn't they? ISIS, Al Qaeda and ISIS have both used them in the past. I don't know why you would trust leaders of any country who have an economic atake it the war. With twitter, facebook, etc you can here from the people in the area. Just be aware that the white helmets and many of their associates are Al Queda and not a nuetral party.
To address "military intervention might be what's necessary if done well." This is a poisonous meme. Not only has every military intervention I can think of made life worse for people in the area It also requires an extreme amount of arrogance to suppose that you know whats best for the people of that country and is just a mirror of Britain's use of spreading "civilization" to justify their imperialism a centry ago.
And to address this one "I'm not sure that's true. What are your sources on this?" While I won't argue that one had killed more than the other I think it is evident that ISIS waged war on Syria an Iraq so they are the source of the conflict (I won't go into how us interventionist policies set the stage for ISIS). Another distinction to be made between the two is that ISIS is vommiting ethnic cleansing while neither government is and they use human shields. They won't even let people flee the cities that they occupy knowing those people will die in the subsequent airstrikes. Syria was actually one of the best countries to live in in the area before this. Both because it was prosperous and the government was less oppressive than the norm.
Disclaimer. My fingers are to big for my phone so I mistupe very often. Its hard to edit post, so I am not going to go back and fux everything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
To address "military intervention might be what's necessary if done well." This is a poisonous meme. Not only has every military intervention I can think of made life worse for people in the area It also requires an extreme amount of arrogance to suppose that you know whats best for the people of that country and is just a mirror of Britain's use of spreading "civilization" to justify their imperialism a centry ago.
Oh, is that what the Allies did to Germany and Japan in World War II?
And to address this one "I'm not sure that's true. What are your sources on this?" While I won't argue that one had killed more than the other I think it is evident that ISIS waged war on Syria an Iraq so they are the source of the conflict (I won't go into how us interventionist policies set the stage for ISIS).
You might want to double-check your timeline on that. The Syrian Civil War broke out in mid-2011. The al-Nusra Front formed in the chaos in early 2012, and merged with al-Qaeda in Iraq to create ISIS in the spring of 2013. ISIS is an effect, not a cause, of the Syrian Civil War (and Exhibit A in the case for Why the West Should Have Intervened Immediately).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The US recently launched missile strikes on a military base in Syria.
Thoughts?
A measured response that was more symbolic than anything else. I approve.
And lol its a full flip from Trump the madman who can't understand how things work to a normal person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To address "military intervention might be what's necessary if done well." This is a poisonous meme. Not only has every military intervention I can think of made life worse for people in the area It also requires an extreme amount of arrogance to suppose that you know whats best for the people of that country and is just a mirror of Britain's use of spreading "civilization" to justify their imperialism a centry ago.
And to address this one "I'm not sure that's true. What are your sources on this?" While I won't argue that one had killed more than the other I think it is evident that ISIS waged war on Syria an Iraq so they are the source of the conflict (I won't go into how us interventionist policies set the stage for ISIS). Another distinction to be made between the two is that ISIS is vommiting ethnic cleansing while neither government is and they use human shields. They won't even let people flee the cities that they occupy knowing those people will die in the subsequent airstrikes. Syria was actually one of the best countries to live in in the area before this. Both because it was prosperous and the government was less oppressive than the norm.
Disclaimer. My fingers are to big for my phone so I mistupe very often. Its hard to edit post, so I am not going to go back and fux everything.
Oh, is that what the Allies did to Germany and Japan in World War II?
You might want to double-check your timeline on that. The Syrian Civil War broke out in mid-2011. The al-Nusra Front formed in the chaos in early 2012, and merged with al-Qaeda in Iraq to create ISIS in the spring of 2013. ISIS is an effect, not a cause, of the Syrian Civil War (and Exhibit A in the case for Why the West Should Have Intervened Immediately).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A measured response that was more symbolic than anything else. I approve.
And lol its a full flip from Trump the madman who can't understand how things work to a normal person.