Thread: Here we go again USA vs Syria

Originally Posted by Pickles2

.................................................. .........
All Countries involved, including the U.S., should be entitled
Cheers, Pickles.

I will go further and say all the countries that do not have chemical weapons
should be entitled to assure themselves that ALL Chemical weapons are gone including the ones that have USA.

USA it is acting as a dogooder which interferes with the sovereign of other countries.

Chucaro....Mate, you obviously have a problem with the U.S.A.?...I haven't heard you say one word of good about them?(totally your right of course)
I try to have a balanced approach, I know what they do....and for sure....I know what they don't do.
I ain't saying they have to be "The World's Policemen", & I ain't saying they're perfect, but in view of some of the radical stuff going on in the World today, I'm glad they're there...and I'm glad they're on "our" side,...VERY glad.
Cheers, Pickles.

Originally Posted by garrycol

Pickles - I don't disagree with you but who appointed the USA as the world's policeman, particularly as it has demonstrated that it functions for its own interests and not necessarily those of other countries. With the USA the cure is more often worse than the ailment.

We do not support vigilantes in modern society and the same applies on the world stage - if the USA was a small country doing the same as it does now, its leaders would have been in the war crimes tribunal - remember any unprovoked attack on another country without UN sanction is against International Law - but it seems this does not apply to the US.

This is a rogue country (yes in a good way for us) that needs to be brought back within the world rules. The one saving aspect of them is that they think they are doing good - just think what it would be like if they turned bad.

Garry

Gary I understand if you take the US troops out then some people/countries will be easier to deal with but without US troops & equipment what is nato or the UN able to do they provide most of the troops for both organisations

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

Gary I understand if you take the US troops out then some people/countries will be easier to deal with but without US troops & equipment what is nato or the UN able to do they provide most of the troops for both organisations

A viable force could be brought together without US direct involvement at the coal face. If rogue elements of Assads army decide to go it alone , the US could do what it does best, provide air cover for the " Task Force ". I think it is critical the US demonstrates new Maturity on the international scene, and shows that it is capable of diplomatic work of the highest level before going in boots & all, unlike Iraq, & Afganistan. They might actually gain some respect from the moderates in the region, and the radicals might be put back in their rat holes. [ I know, tell him he's dreamin. ] I also think Assads government may not be in full control of elements of the Army, and those elements I would regard as dangerous as the jihadists/ratbags on the rebels side. Let's face it, someone did something terrible to those civilians, the priority should be getting stability back to Syria, and then finding out who & what, and national egos and chest pumping " oorahing! " should have nothing to do with it. Bob

G'Day Bob, Yeah...No worries with any of that.
The main thing is that it gets "sorted"......properly.....Assad does what He's told.....with no, "ifs or buts", & no "favourable treatment" of Assad by the Russians.
I just have this feeling that Assad may be, "the best of a bad bunch", so with some "sorting, he may just be, the best bet.
It's a bit like Tony said "It's the baddies against the baddies"?!
Cheers, Pickles.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Chucaro....Mate, you obviously have a problem with the U.S.A.?...I haven't heard you say one word of good about them?(totally your right of course)
I try to have a balanced approach, I know what they do....and for sure....I know what they don't do.
I ain't saying they have to be "The World's Policemen", & I ain't saying they're perfect, but in view of some of the radical stuff going on in the World today, I'm glad they're there...and I'm glad they're on "our" side,...VERY glad.
Cheers, Pickles.

Why do you think that USA and other countries have to have the right to have nuclear and chemical weapons and the others no?
My opinion about USA governments (not the American people)it is based in what happen in South America and it is indefensible by USA.
And by the way still happens as we write in this thread spying on many countries and even on the presidents private home phones.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Why do you think that USA and other countries have to have the right to have nuclear and chemical weapons and the others no?
My opinion about USA governments (not the American people)it is based in what happen in South America and it is indefensible by USA.
And by the way still happens as we write in this thread spying on many countries and even on the presidents private home phones.

South America?...Yes I've heard about that, but I ain't no expert, so I'm not denying anything, & even if I did know much, you'd probably be right!
I'm VERY glad, that if anyone has to have them(Nuclear Weapons), then the U.S. has got 'em....and I'd like to point out that the U.S. has not used them,..yeah I know, except in WW11 against Japan, where at least 100,000 lives were saved, including many Aussie soldiers who would have died in the fighting......and the U.S. were not the instigators of that conflict.
Other Countries? Do you think Iran should have them?....As the world centre of Terrorism...where do you think that would end up?
Spying....I would suggest to you that EVERY Country is involved in that to some degree.....it's only that the U.S. has some fairly sophisticated equipment.
As I've said, they are not perfect, no Country is, but where I probably differ from you, is that I would say that the U.S. have done a lot more good, than bad, in the World.
I disagree with you 100% that they are a "Rogue Country", but yes I do agree with you, that I would not like to be around if they turned bad, because that would mean that they would not be on "our" side, well "My" side anyway.
Cheers, Pickles.

If you honestly think that the U.S is the international good guy well then......
....I disagree. Not going to start slinging names
Yes, the U.S has done plenty of good in the world. They've also done an incredible amount that's counter productive.
The argument that "everyone spies but the U.S has more specialised equipment" doesn't hold water IMHO, that's like saying Everyone's doing it so I might as well do it the best. Not good enough.
The U.S is your best buddy, as long as they get something out of it.
Ever seen Team America? Sure it's a giant **** take but there are some scary elements of truth in it.
Just remember that the Pax Americana won't be on top forever, if it still is.