Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Hmm... I was wondering where could this come from.
I've found this about the Saudi version. The news agency is independent, but is based in th USA, as I understand, and the reporter is also working for bigger Western agencies such as AP and BBC.
I've also found this from NY Times. They still say that the chemical attack was made by Assad's forces, but now they say, they don't have any proof, and maybe it was made by some rogue government unit. So now they're not so sure.
So it does seem quite questionable, that the attack was made by Assad's forces.
I've found this about the Saudi version. The news agency is independent, but is based in th USA, as I understand, and the reporter is also working for bigger Western agencies such as AP and BBC.
I've also found this from NY Times. They still say that the chemical attack was made by Assad's forces, but now they say, they don't have any proof, and maybe it was made by some rogue government unit. So now they're not so sure.
So it does seem quite questionable, that the attack was made by Assad's forces.
First at all, I do not hate USA. If I would have option to decide if Czech republic will become 51st state of USA or remain neutral I would choose first option. I love your country, literature, Simpsons, economy ideals, military etc.
Second, there wasnt shown any proof that Assad used chemical weapons. By common sense Assad lacks motivation. What would be his motivation use chemical weapons after 2 years of war when he is finally winning? Why he would use such controverse weapon just againist civilists?
Third, for me its not about crime and punishment, its not black-white situation. In fact many people see Assad as least evil. The military action should destabilize Syria even more.
(edited)
Second, there wasnt shown any proof that Assad used chemical weapons. By common sense Assad lacks motivation. What would be his motivation use chemical weapons after 2 years of war when he is finally winning? Why he would use such controverse weapon just againist civilists?
Third, for me its not about crime and punishment, its not black-white situation. In fact many people see Assad as least evil. The military action should destabilize Syria even more.
(edited)
I DO believe the world has a moral obligation to punish any country that uses chemical weapons were. Do you not? And if not, why?
Punish, yes. Bomb, no. Invade, no.
Punish, yes. Bomb, no. Invade, no.
Morally, the world must take some action to punish any government that would use drones and kills thousands of innocent civillians but guess what, nothing happens...
now to answer your question about what would be accomplished? I do not know.
That's the problem. It's like in South Park. You have a plan to bring peace and democracy to Syria:
1. Bomb Assad.
2. ?
3. Peaceful and democratic Syria
It didn't work for Aghanistan, it didn't work for Iraq, ... Guess what.
That's the problem. It's like in South Park. You have a plan to bring peace and democracy to Syria:
1. Bomb Assad.
2. ?
3. Peaceful and democratic Syria
It didn't work for Aghanistan, it didn't work for Iraq, ... Guess what.
Punish, yes. Bomb, no. Invade, no.
Should be punished how, and by what in your opinion?
Should be punished how, and by what in your opinion?
Should be punished how, and by what in your opinion?
Companies should not cooperate with the Assad-regime and they should distance themselves from the Syrian regime. But it's their choice.
Companies should not cooperate with the Assad-regime and they should distance themselves from the Syrian regime. But it's their choice.
They already do it. They don't even have McDonalds.
Yes, I'm sure that no Russian companies cooperate with the Assad-regime. The governments also should not support Assad of course (but they shouldn't impose a trade stop to Syria).
So you basically suggest an international trade embargo (of course voluntary by all the companies of the world). A similar thing worked very well for Saddam's Iraq. Although the Iraqi government and Saddam felt quite well, at least the people were starving.
(edited)
(edited)
So you basically suggest an international trade embargo (of course voluntary by all the companies of the world).
Yes.
Although the Iraqi government and Saddam felt quite well, at least the people were starving.
It's the moral thing to do.
Yes.
Although the Iraqi government and Saddam felt quite well, at least the people were starving.
It's the moral thing to do.
Morally, the world must take some action to punish any government that would use drones and kills thousands of innocent civillians but guess what, nothing happens...
would you feel the same way if a band of terrorist were intent on taken down Rotterdam harbor, Utrecht?
would you feel the same way if a band of terrorist were intent on taken down Rotterdam harbor, Utrecht?
Maybe they are, but without actual prove you can't start shooting almost blindly rockets at buildings because a group of terrorists or an individual could be in it at that moment, or maybe just innocent kids and families. Collateral damage (as in non-combatant casualties) is not a calculated risk, it's murder.
Besides, being affraid of terrotist attacks is not a US thing, many countries has been attacked already, many even way way more as the US and also for a much longer time. But these countries don't send drones to other countries to kill innocent bystanders.
In fact, how many times has there been an attack on North-American ground? And how many attacks in other continents. Looking at the facts, and not some made up paranoia, who are the ones that should be really affraid? Not the ones in North-America :/
(edited)
Besides, being affraid of terrotist attacks is not a US thing, many countries has been attacked already, many even way way more as the US and also for a much longer time. But these countries don't send drones to other countries to kill innocent bystanders.
In fact, how many times has there been an attack on North-American ground? And how many attacks in other continents. Looking at the facts, and not some made up paranoia, who are the ones that should be really affraid? Not the ones in North-America :/
(edited)
would you feel the same way if a band of terrorist were intent on taken down Rotterdam harbor, Utrecht?
Dennis, let's face it: the American foreign policy is one the most crual ones on Earth. And that has nothing to do with us hating the States (I'm a libertarian, I love the States). It's just that the USA should not be the policeman of the world.
Dennis, let's face it: the American foreign policy is one the most crual ones on Earth. And that has nothing to do with us hating the States (I'm a libertarian, I love the States). It's just that the USA should not be the policeman of the world.