MisterFalcon
Member
It's the other way around, UNOCHA had literally nothing to say about the civilians killed in Aleppo: http://www.unocha.org/statements/statement-situation-aleppo-syria-1
UN war crime investigators: US air strikes in Raqqa causing "staggering loss of life"
- Thread starter SilentRob
- Start date
It's the other way around, UNOCHA had literally nothing to say about the civilians killed in Aleppo: http://www.unocha.org/statements/statement-situation-aleppo-syria-1
Obama also rejected the Russian led peace proposal in 2012. So there's that too.
Was that before or after Syria used chemical weapons on its citizens? And lying is also very much a part of the Russian playbook.
But commenting the news: That's what Trump actually said he would do. Go after the families of the terrorists. That was on his ballot and the people have chosen. Too bad that he really is turning the US into Russia.
"The only solution to a complex geopolitical crisis is to bomb the country!"
Okay, what's the alternative?
Obviously, civilian safety should be a priority... But when ISIS forces essentially use civilians as shields, what are we to do?
I don't think there is a single American president since 1945 that hasn't contributed to war crimes. The US is a waning imperialist power. America has easily been one of the most destabilising countries in the world in the last couple of decades. Civilian casualties are irrelevant if an action is in American "interests".
AcademicSaucer
Member
Basically this, the US can do no wrong.
Maybe don't bomb a country and its population? Maybe seek conflict resolution via other means than war and bombs? There are so many other options than trying to kill "the bad guys"
It was a missed opportunity and one that should have been explored. It's as simple as that. The United States is a joke, and so is anyone defending their utterly disgusting foreign policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside
Extra Sauce
Member
I am reminded of that big ball of evil that the military shot missiles at in The Fifth Element, only for it to grow bigger.
This article is pretty light on details, but attacking a city like Raqqa is going to lead to things like this. Not really many good options for dealing with ISIS there.
Yeah go and try and talk it out with ISIS, that'll work.
What the fuck? Are you serious? You're proposing that we make a peace agreement with ISIS?
Peace agreements might work with legitimate goverments, not with jihadi groups.
All of this started long before ISIS. If you want to objectively look at the mess in the region then it's important to get context. Colonialism and US hegemony are primary causes. ISIS is a monster that spawned out of a region that has been brutalised for decades upon decades.
Skellig Gra
Member
Don't drop fucking bombs on them.
MisterFalcon
Member
Charging into Raqqa WW1 style with bayonets fixed ? Keep in mind there are hundreds of suicide bomb vehicles waiting.
Seductivpancakes
Member
A tiger tank by the looks of it.
"this whole ya'll deserve it for past transgressions" is incredibly childish.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
I noticed Maxim asked for an alternative and you didn't provide one.
The same situation was in Libya 2011 but Killary convinced Obama to put the country into a still ongoing civil war.
Hilary did in fact reject an offer for a transition of government to a more democratic state by Saif Gaddafi. Or rather, ignored it in favour of toppling the dictatorship.
MisterFalcon
Member
These claims of imminent deals in Libya and Syria think we're still in the 1960's where insurgencies were tightly run by the superpowers and could be made to follow their wishes. Modern insurgencies are essentially run through crowdfunding and there is no way for either Russia or the US to make 'their' rebels or dictator dance to their tune.
This is laughable. You have zero idea what you're​ taking about.
I Stalk Alone
Member
Yeah ISIS kickstarter campaigns with all those fidget spinners really doing the trick.
Leave.The west needs to just let the middle east figure out its own issues. Constantly interfering just makes a new generation of terrorists with each civilian the USA kills. Focus the money and energy you would have spent on bombing towards helping handle the refugees from the conflict.
benjipwns
Banned
Nonsense. If we followed your advice people would die but we'd be freed from our continued guilt of contributing to that death toll. Completely unacceptable.
MisterFalcon
Member
So you seriously think that if Russian and American diplomats shook hands Assad/Gadaffi would step down and the rebels stop fighting ?
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Oh, there was plenty of talk in the last white phosphorus thread. Talk about how the US military did it just as a smokescreen to save civilians and that reports stating the contrary were just propaganda, that is. U-S-A U-S-A
Sure, but that doesn't help with the situation at hand. Right now, sadly, the best way to go seems to be bombing. Ground invasion is pretty much out of question and without US air support Iraq Army and SDF would be in much worse position. It's a very shitty situation and of course it would be best that US would minimize the casualties as much as they can, but "seeking resolution to the conflict" against ISIS that doesn't involve war is pretty much out of the question.
ReplacementPelican
Member
Sounds like a bunch of economic refugees if you ask me.
Seriously, can everyone please endeavor to remember these statistics next time someone on the right tries to argue that its not our 'responsibility' to help refugees.
If you actually believe that diplomacy shouldn't be explored when opportunities present themselves, you're utterly insane.
Russia and Syria are allies. Getting them to talk is a non-issue. Iran is the same. It's in their interests to end the conflict. The FSA do have a heirarchy. The FSA was backed by the United States. If you actually read what was being proposed it included everyone, starting with a ceasefire. Then talks, then Assad moving away from power. Surely exploring it is better than a rejection, you cannot be serious with your stance.
And again, Saif Gaddafi's proposal was sent relatively early on when the troubles started in Libya. Something that should have been explored.
There isn't any room for negotiating with ISIS. My response is more to do with general US foreign policy and Western intervention.
Russia, U.S., Syria and Iraq (obviously), Turkey, France, U.K., Qatar, The Arab League (though I don't know how the participation of nations on an individual level works). Then you have a lot of non-state groups like Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, Kurds, and various rebel and pro-government Islamist and non-Islamist groups.
I wonder when US & European citizens will realize this (regardless of political affiliation, Democrat or Republican)
In the fight against the Islamic State, the US and Europe are the baddies?
Skellig Gra
Member
Tomorrow? How about today? This stuff never makes headlines.
Huh? How is stopping bombing not an alternative to continuing bombing?
The white phosphorus is not what killed the 600 people being talked about. That was from conventional bombing in the city. The white phosphorus was used to shield thousands of fleeing civilians who were being murdered by Isis fighters. The use of white phosphorus is considered very dangerous (but not illegal) and it's unknown so far if it killed/maimed any civilians.
It's more a commentary on blowing up civilians into little bits of flesh.
sleepnaught
Member
Idiotic thing to say. It's not just Americans who are suffering under his administration. Did you not even read the op?
It's kind of an odd GIF to use given what the sketch is about. The West here is not much different from the Western Allies in WW2.
In the fight against ISIS? Sure. Beyond that, not even close.
Kind of have to ban air forces, artillery, bombs in general, and fighting in any area where civilians are.
Not saying it's right, but anyone who is not a pacifist needs to understand what happens in war. It's why it shouldn't be taken so lightly.
The fight against the Islamic State is what I was referring to.
Absolutely.
The Greek Freak
Member
The only resolution that doesn't end with ISIS or ISIS lite in charge is Assad who is untenable for the people in power and is a piece of shit as well.
We will waste money while Syrians pay the blood price and nothing good will happen for decades to come long after there is noone left to bomb.
This isn't hurting the US as much as it is hurting civilians. How is that karma? Did the citizens deserve this for their own imperialism?
????
Wow.
You can't possibly be this ignorant, can you?
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or...?
Okay, I'll ask more succinctly- In lieu of drone strikes, how would you handle the Islamic State? Just leave them be? Ground troops?
You can save millions of people from starvation, disease and extreme poverty without firing a single bullet and with much less money and resources. Whoever says the war on terrorism and the death of civilians is for the greater good is a hypocrite.