The Dink Network

Let's instigate regime change in Syria.

GO GO GO.

Aye, let's send in Dink to assasinate the leader. He's clearly a member of the Cast in disguise over there.

In all seriousness though, this entire debacle has been blown so out of proportion that it isn't funny any more.

Assad is almost certain to have chemical weapons and is using them on his own people.
Being that there are chemical weapons in circulation, we have no idea who is going to get hold of them next.

Putin backs Assad and Iran.
Murica backs Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and the Rebels.

The Middle East (and our European allies for that matter) have condemned Assads action's as intolerable.

Despite this, I'm not a fan of supporting the Middle East. There is no indication that rebels, be it Libya or Syria, will end up any better that the previous dictator.

For this reason, I believe we should let our regional allies handle the situation, or at least take the lead being that it will affect them and not us. The weapons need to be rid of, but I don't think America should lead the charge.

However, I'm still open to other ideas.

America with its hilariously predictable plans once again.

America with its hilariously predictable plans once again.
Sort of like your comments on the American people.
Need I bring up the sheet of quotes I recorded from you regarding your obvious bigotry towards Americans? Or perhaps simply post a link to the "Ban Punisher" thread I created?

Skull, if you're going to enter a political discussion, at least do it with some degree of tact.

Update:The Syria Gubermintz is indeed behind the attacks
1,500 people were killed in a chemical weapons attack near Demascus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

Well, what do you guys think?
Assad is an animal, but how do you think he should be dealt with (if at all)?

I think this time the US would have a MUUUUUCH better reason to go to war And I think in this case the EU countries should follow suit. Though I know the UK has already voted against any action.

As for the rebels being better leaders, in those countries, probably not by much. But there won't be genocide for quite some time at least?

I think this time the US would have a MUUUUUCH better reason to go to war

Implying USA needs a reason to go to war.

I had typed something here about politics, but there's just no way to discuss it without flaring tempers. Suffice to say that the situation sucks and there's no way at all for the US to look/do good.

A few words in defense of Americans: an awful lot of us don't like much of what our country is doing (like, say, ignoring our own constitution), but there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about it. Hell, a pretty serious majority supported some kind of gun control in a recent poll, but congress is so much in the NRA's pocket that those jerks couldn't even pass a gun control bill right after a bunch of kids got killed. Both parties suck and there's no viable third option; I tend to vote for Democrats only because the Republicans actually put things like being anti-fabulous and "poor people don't deserve health care because they're poor and that's their fault" right on their official party platform. So much for representative government, eh?

edit-haha, anti-fabulous. Never seen a perfectly normal term for "homosexual" on a swear filter before.

It's BS. The US has used skin melting chemical weaponry in the recent past. I didn't see Western nations throwing a WAHWAH then.

Also, isn't it a bit odd, shall we say, that only after letting in the UN inspectors into the country, and after gaining the upper hand in the conflict, and after the US government had declared chemical weapons to be the red line that, if crossed, would lead to them getting involved... isn't it odd that only then they decided to use chemical weapons?

Pretty weird, huh. Or suspicious...

edit-haha, anti-fabulous. Never seen a perfectly normal term for "homosexual" on a swear filter before.

That's the first time I've ever seen it on here xD I actually thought you came up with it yourself

From a foreigner's perspective I think most of us Belgians look at your republican party and it boggles our mind that anyone would vote for such a party. But I guess it's just a very strong part of American tradition to have that focus on either democrats or republicans. But really, any party that promotes discrimination of a minority group is just awful. Add the gun policy, anti-abortion, warmongering, rich-get-richer policy, etc... and it's no wonder that sometimes it feels like it's good vs evil with the democrats and republicans xD But again, that's only from a foreigner's perspective and I'm obviously not aware of all the cultural influences. And I'm perfectely aware the democrats probably have a million shortcomings too, as is the case with all parties in politics.

Pretty weird, huh. Or suspicious...

Tin-foil hat? I think Assad is just powertripping at the moment, fueled by hatred. Add to that the fact that he can feel the end coming, like a cornered animal flailing around.

US doing its stupid habits again.

No surprise there.

In a nutshell for the simpletons:

"If Syria has chemical weapons, we'll sure as hell go after them"

NEXT DAY:

"Syria has chemical weapons! Attack!"

I'm even willing to bet the whole "Syria net attack" was done by the US and blamed on Syria, to get your everyday people against them, and to support the war.

Well, the notion that it was the rebels who released chemical weapons isn't terribly tin hat worthy. Indeed, there is evidence for it (I hear).

Assad was beating the rebels. That he would suddenly unleash the one kind of attack that would bring international intervention is something to be questioned, surely.

You also have to question the motives of only interfering with nation states in a particular part of the globe. Plenty of atrocities in North Korea and parts of Africa... I don't see Western forces eyeing them up.

It's worrying. If WW3 ever occurs, it's going to be a Russian/Chinese reaction to this kind of stuff. You can bet they're concerned about the US and their followers launching attacks on 3 different Middle Eastern regimes in little more than a decade.

Best finish our d-mods while we can!

You also have to question the motives of only interfering with nation states in a particular part of the globe. Plenty of atrocities in North Korea and parts of Africa... I don't see Western forces eyeing them up.

Because North Korea will fall flat on its own. It possesses no threat nor gain. It's not relevant to the US's interest.

China though is a big threat, which of course means the US has already begun its molework over there.

Best finish our d-mods while we can!

Now you of all people should keep that attitude!

"It's not relevant to the US's interest."

This is the key part.

That's not to say it isn't relevant to other European interests too, but the US is leading the way.

Maybe if the US didn't go to war when someone says a threat, we could control our debt.

Maybe if the US didn't go to war when someone says a threat, we could control our debt.

It would certainly help.

It does seem an extremely stupid and pointless move for Assad to suddenly bomb a bunch of civilians with chemical weapons for no apparent reason when he knows the USA and friends will get angry. The news keeps going on about civilians - does anyone know if there was actually any tactical advantage in that case that might have warranted the use of those weapons (in his mind, at least)?

Anyway, America is looking less and less like anyone will take them seriously here. Obama tries to make a big deterrent by saying "if we even smell anyone using chemical weapons, we'll come down on them with all our might!" and then each time it happens he fumbles around trying to make an excuse. Ok so it's not so simple as that but that's certainly what it looks like on the surface and it's not helping America's "world superpower" image.

It does seem an extremely stupid and pointless move for Assad to suddenly bomb a bunch of civilians with chemical weapons for no apparent reason when he knows the USA and friends will get angry.

From our point of view, yes, it seems weird. But think of some precedents. Hitler ordered the disposal of every Jew when he knew his time was coming to an end. North Korea loves to keep taunting the US and other nations, even though they could be invaded and defeated in less than a week if the US wanted to. The US nuked Japan when the war was already won. In war, logic doesn't always come into play. There's crazy people making crazy decisions and it's pointless to try and get into their heads.

I think the main thing people are forgetting is that no country is trying to invade Syria. They're not out to take control of the government. There's no oil to be had. It's simply assisting the rebels to take over, so that the atrocities can come to an end. Will the rebels be the same or worse? Maybe, absolutely a possibility, but at least some countries will have taken responsibility to at least try to bring some peace to chaotic regions in the world.

God knows it should have happened AGES ago for a lot of African countries too, where there is a perpetual war between governments and rebels, with civilians caught in the middle every single day. You need only talk to medical personal that volunteers over there. It's only the dance of politics that stands in the way of solving conflicts. That much is true for EVERY country in the world.

The world is hilarious, isn't it?

I find something a little suspicious about the U.S. sending all of our men to the other side, though it could be some politic plan and I don't need to care.

Also I would like to ask, When was the U.S. a "World Superpower", is it because they have a strong army or because our debt?

I find something a little suspicious about the U.S. sending all of our men to the other side, though it could be some politic plan and I don't need to care.

[i]Also I would like to ask, When was the U.S. a "World Superpower", is it because they have a strong army or because our debt?

We're not sending anymore over. As of right now no boots are going on the ground

We have the most powerful economy and military in the world.

We're not sending anymore over. As of right now no boots are going on the ground

We have the most powerful economy and military in the world.


You have the most idiots and fat people.

Well gee man, since you put it that way...

How do you define the most powerful economy in the world?

Kyle - No oil from Syria, but it's (supposedly) down to weakening Iran's position. They have a lot of oil. Perhaps they're not taking control of the government either ... but they - and we - are supporting rebels by giving them aid. We're actively supporting them to take control of the country and are still instigating the change we want.

This has very little to do with freedom or human rights. Guantanamo Bay is obviously a headliner (not to the extent it should be) but did y'all know that the numbers of congenital defects at birth are higher in Fallujah after Allied intervention than they were in Hiroshima? Pretty messed up... how much do the Western powers really care when this stuff goes on? Not a jot.

It's all very depressing, nomatter what angle you come at it from.

Armed civilians. Best part of the story.

What's most depressing for me is that people from any country, can't stop their country from going to war. Power to the people and democracy my a**. Then again, it was never any different, and it will never be.

It's all very depressing, nomatter what angle you come at it from.

Now there's something we can all agree on.

I kind of disagree about the depressing part, if someone evil came her then it wouldn't be depressing.

Dack...

I so wish WC was around to do what WC did so well.

What did WC do? [bring KFC]

God knows it should have happened AGES ago for a lot of African countries too

I'm not sure about Syria, but in Africa the problem is pretty clear: the west (that's the US and Europe, and in particular the big corporations from there) are draining those countries of all their natural resources, leaving only polluted ground behind. They don't bring many jobs, they're just taking stuff away like the colonists did a long time ago. They deliver weapons to all sides of any conflict to make sure that nobody can get strong enough to oppose them.

I don't have a solution for those problems, but sending an army might not be as helpful as you might think. Letting them take control over their own country, however, would be a good start. But that would mean our companies can't make crazy profits on it, so that's not going to happen.

Letting them take control over their own country, however, would be a good start.

The thing is, they can't. Look at plenty of African countries.

Maybe if we gave some supplies for free then maybe they can build up.

I don't understand why the US feels it has this duty to be the so-called World Police. Isn't that the UN's role? Unless the US controls or overrides the UN charter. From what I've heard in this case it's illegal to charge into a sovereign country such as Syria, yet there's a moral issue to get in and stop this regime from killing the people with chemical weapons.
The conundrum is actually getting in and finding the evidence - which the UN Security Council needs to sanction any invasion - without that act being deemed illegal. Hearsay and rumour isn't enough.
It's not illegal to defend one's country if it's under attack; so Syria (even though it's apparently ruled by a cruel warlord) is entitled to defend itself if the US (or anyone) invaded.

re Shevek: maybe as Afghanistan winds down, US arms suppliers need a new 'market'? NB Russia vetoes US action, so the US could have a monopoly on arms supplies. If it does escalate, then Syria could be a buyer for Russian arms. It's the cold war all over again, except it's not so cold.

Maybe they do it for the Call of Duty games? Also then wouldn't it be called a hot war?

Isn't that the UN's role?

Absolutely! But they won't and never will for any conflict of importance because of the veto rights Russia and China have. Yes, the UN is one big failure and should be abolished and recreated with different rules in place.

Also, throughout history there have been more "world police" organizations and they all failed gloriously in their task. So it's possible it might never work...

Letting them take control over their own country, however, would be a good start.

The thing is, they can't. Look at plenty of African countries.

The point I was making, is that the western world (companies more than governments) are actively maintaining chaos in Africa. If they would stop doing that, I wouldn't be surprised to see the people in Africa being able to take care of themselves.

they won't and never will for any conflict of importance because of the veto rights Russia and China have.

And the US; they're opportunistically blocking stuff just as much.

Yes, the UN is one big failure and should be abolished and recreated with different rules in place.

I disagree. The UN is very slow and can't take a very active role, especially in conflicts where the "big boys" disagree. But I see that as a good thing: if the US would be allowed to overrule China and Russia, and they feel really bad about it, they'll send their armies to protect their cause. That would result in WW3.

UN priorities are simple and sensible: First, avoid global war; second, try to make the world safer.

And while it is "illegal" according to international right to invade a country without a UN resolution, it's not like there's any penalty as long as you are (backed by) a veto-holder; there wasn't a resolution when the US invaded Iraq, but that didn't stop them. And nobody is making a big deal out of it, either.

That makes me wonder, is the United Nation even useful or a waste of space, and a wonder in Civilization Revolution?

UN priorities are simple and sensible: First, avoid global war; second, try to make the world safer.

That depends on how you define global war. Right now there are dozens of wars being fought globally, with millions of victims every year.

As for making the world safer, I've yet to see them do that.

People have been trying to make the world "safer" it's hard to see unless you're using sarcasm.

Personal note: I bet some random zoo baboons can keep the world safer then whoever is in charge right now.

lol the only 'zoo baboon' that came to mind was Idi Amin.. and he didn't make many Ugandans feel very safe.

What about the baboons in the person who haunts my dreams basement?

Tal haunts my dreams.