Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, there's a bigger picture here too. It isn't like events in Syria up to this point haven't had an impact here. Recall the Syrian refugee situation affecting our allies (and which led us to boost the numbers admitted to Canada). The more refugees flood into Europe, the more pleased Russia is, due to the destabilizing affect on the European countries where they end up. And Russia's playing a long game here (interference with western elections, trying to expand a foothold in the Middle East which destabilizes the region and threatens Western allies there). The big picture, and our alliances, matter here. What affects them ultimately affects us too. We do have an interest in what happens there... add the war crimes into the mix, and we're opposing a very nasty regime supported by a chain of iron-fisted dictators... there are threats that need to be dealt with there.
Well, there's a bigger picture here too. It isn't like events in Syria up to this point haven't had an impact here. Recall the Syrian refugee situation affecting our allies (and which led us to boost the numbers admitted to Canada). The more refugees flood into Europe, the more pleased Russia is, due to the destabilizing affect on the European countries where they end up. And Russia's playing a long game here (interference with western elections, trying to expand a foothold in the Middle East which destabilizes the region and threatens Western allies there). The big picture, and our alliances, matter here. What affects them ultimately affects us too. We do have an interest in what happens there... add the war crimes into the mix, and we're opposing a very nasty regime supported by a chain of iron-fisted dictators... there are threats that need to be dealt with there.
You are wrong.
The only thing that matter is to find the best and less harmful way to bring peace to Syria and help Syrians out of the war misery.
Nothing else matters, not your BS allies, not morality, not Russian influence, not geopolitics. One doesn't deserve to be a human if he thinks otherwise.
Putin regime is so much corrupt, that he needs wars to divert the attention of the population from the failing economy. First it was Georgia, then Crimea and East Ukraine, now it is Syria. Unfortunately, they are all very bad - Russia, Isis, Assad, Iran. USA should reestablish its dominance in the world affairs, not to forget to support its greatest ally, Israel (the only democracy in the middle east and probably the most stabilizing factor there preventing a total regional war).
The only thing that matter is to find the best and less harmful way to bring peace to Syria and help Syrians out of the war misery.
Nothing else matters, not your BS allies, not morality, not Russian influence, not geopolitics. One doesn't deserve to be a human if he thinks otherwise.
Non-violence is commendable where possible, but I personally support the idea of defending one's allies against aggression from other regimes. Ultimately it affects us.
Except Canada should NOT support without principle. They are allies, great, but when US does something absolutely senseless, are you saying Canada should support it all along? I expect more from it. That makes a difference between a country with a concience and a minion. Do you agree?
I largely agree with the Geopolitics in play. There are some examples of U.S F.P I don't agree with and didn't support and I've made those clear. So the answer to your question is somewhere in the middle. Not a complete vassal state of the U.S but we do have to appease it to a certain degree. We aren't bordering China here - we border the U.S. All said, do I prefer a U.S as the global power over Russia -YUP!
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
You say Trump is sending a message about STOP using chems -- however, as I said repeated, there is no evidence that it is Assad who did it. It defies any logic as I explained earlier. Then what's the legitimacy to attack a country with no concrete evidence, and without UN approval? I thought the reason they attack Syria was because Assad violated international law about not using chemical weapon, then the US violates international law to punish it? How convincing to me. Guess the law is used only when we need it?
Oh c'mon Botti give me a break.. By the time we found 'conclusive' as required on a forum we simply don't have access and never will as joe blow citizens. I think its very fair to say that Assad used chem weapons. It is a case of Russia saying oh no it wasn't Assad and never was - he's an honourable guy and the U.S saying, nah it was him - he used them. I'll go with the U.S on this. I also spoke to some Syrian Refugees DT a few days ago at NFP and they didn't have wonderful things to say of Assad. I believe Assad has been using horrific means to kill innocent children more than the rebels so yeah, I believe it was Assad. International 'law' has no teeth. It can say thou shall not use chemical weapons but does nothing to enforce it. I think Trump/the U.S was right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
You are completely avoiding the key issue here and just blindly believe whatever western media feeds you. and even those newspaper didn't bring out evidence, just their speculation. Should th world work like that now? If Assad did do that and it is proved, then I have no problem with the attack. But there is none. That makes the attack neither moral nor legal. That makes Canada's support shameful.
Oh yeah, western media is bad and RT is good lol.. Should I start getting my news from NK too? As I said, I think Assad did the deed and I think he got a proportional response. To me this isn't that complicated. Trump is saying Assad - stop using chemical weapons. I think Assad got the message and I think he'll stop and nothing more will become of it. Case closed mission accomplished. Both Assad and Putin now know they aren't dealing with a moral equivocator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
Do you really think North Korea is controlled by China? If you pay more attention on world affairs lately, you would know it is NOT. China may have want to use NK as a leverage, but rest assured China doesn't want a regional war in East Asia as much as any country. China only cares about its own economic development and is far less involved in the ideological conflict than the western counterparts, nor does it want to force other country to adopt its own political system.
Ok well if China can't do something about NK than i'm more than happy that Trump does. China shouldn't complain about THAAD missiles in SK either and just continue on its economic endeavours and stop its chest beating about being a regional power. I won't judge China for being a pacifist economic power! If they come out and say it i'll respect them for it. We can let the U.S deal with baby Kim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
Forcing NK to halt its nuclear program? How? I didn't see the US was able to halt Israel's agressive settlement in Palestine either, and they two are much better relationship. Canada didn't seem to care either. The west is not bombing Saudi Arabia either when everyone knows clearly it is creating and exporting terrorism. Yet it bombs Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afganistan etc etc. How did that turn out?
I don't feel comfortable with a country like NK gaining nuclear weapons or having the ability to launch an ICBM at Seattle. They constantly talk about how they want to annihilate SK and the U.S. They'll get what is coming to them. If not from China than the U.S itself i'm ok with that. Israel doesn't talk about annihilating Iran does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
And also think about this: why does NK threaten to nuke the US over and over again, not Canada, not France, not Brazil, but the United States, the most powerful and impossible enemy? You have to think about it. Because NK hates the "freedom and democracy" in the western world?? You have got to be a 5 year old to believe that. I am against nuclear weapon of course, but why these world power turn a blind eye when Israel, India develope their nuclear weapon?
NK is playing a dangerous game with the U.S. Only a 5 year old would do that! Especially someone like Trump. He isn't a morally ambiguous type of guy. He is very transactional. You support him when it works for you but are vehemently opposed when his transactional nature doesn't fit your geopolitics Botti lol - what gives India and Israel are proven nuclear powers who have been responsible with their nuclear arsenal. As have Russia and China been btw! I'm fully comfortably with a nuclear armed China - they've proven themselves a competent nation in world affairs and global geopolitics by and large. I just don't want them supplanting the U.S. China and Russia and NK are completely different. Look at the way ppl live in NK as well. Its a shame and due to complete and total abysmal leadership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
You might say, because it is not a stable regime, evil axis. Who are US and Canada to decide who is stable and who is evil? For some countries the US represents repression and evil too (it certainly appears often so to me), should we force the US to give up its nuclear weapon?
Why do you bring Canada into this lol.. Canada is not a geopolitical player. You honestly trust North Korea as a nuclear power more than the U.S or China.. C'mon Botti you can't be serious. You are getting into silly moral ambiguity here and accusing me of being involved in logical fallacies. This is very simple - Would you feel comfortable if baby Kim had the power that Trump or Jinping or Putin has. You can't say with a straight face yes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
Yes, that's the real world we live - big guys telling small guys what not to do, which is fine, But let's not pretend it is because of morality or the responsibility to pretect anyone. And from Nk's perpective, it wants to survive and would consider it its right, and probably only way to have nuclear in order to have a chance against big powers that hate it all along.
North Korea wants to survive!!?? Is that is what is driving them.. We could place Kim Kardassian in power of NK and she'd do a much better job than all those Kim's have done. They have to be the pinnacle of irresponsible and horrible family klan crap leadership of a nation in modern times.
I think I addressed a lot of this in my last post. I will say you are making something more of this than you should be. That said, i'm surprised you are so surprised.. Its like you are hurt about Trumps actions. At the end of the day he is President of the U.S.. He will do what he thinks is best for American geopolitical interests. I don't think i'll always agree with the ways and means of that but in this case, i'm comfortable with his action based on everything I know of the situation. btw I don't just read western media
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
You are making so many logic errors here.
You said Obama should have done that with evidence, OK, blame Obama, but all of a sudden, what makes it right to Trump to do it WITHOUT? I don't understand your logic here, because you yourself said there is no evidence the crime this time is committed by Assad, then why the hell do you think the US is right to bomb it, killing more people?
And "U.S will not tolerate a regime that flagrantly decides IT can do what it wants with the lives of innocent people esp children and babies"... wow the hypocricy is so multifold that I can't process it right away. Let's give some hint here
1. Saudi Arabia (yes and sorry, I will keep using this example)
2. US war on Iraq, which everyone including Bush himself admits was a mistake. Did "children and babies" die because of this? Who is being held responsible? I guess when it comes to big powers, it does NOT matter any more??? Why do you not feel the same self-righteousness?
3. Obama's irresponsibile drone attacks. Did thousands of children and babies die from it? Yet the criminal is holding his Nobel Peace prize now. I guess since western newspapers didn't show grahic photos of dead bodies (guess why?), you won't have a strong reaction.
Are you seriously only responding to what the media chooses to show you, and then form your opinions based solely on that? You have gotta to be smarter than that.
Your problem is when a non-western country does something wrong, you scrutinize it and call for the most severe punishement - which is fine. Yet when a western country does something equally bad and wrong, you pretend it is not that serious, or it is "for a good cause" or pretend it didn't happen and give them a free pass, or worse, even give the same country the legimacy to attack others when it deems appropriate.
You are usually a very reasonable person with a clear head about complicated issues. But I am afraid on this you are just as brainwashed and prejudiced as the next Canadian. "New found respect for Trump"? Trump doesn't have a plan what to do next! Foreign policy is about making things better in the end, not to punish whoever you think did wrong!
just wait. Syria will turn worse and terrorism and probably ISIS will be on the rise again, all thanks to Trump. He did something completely contrary to what he promised in his campaign:
Lambasted Obama for involving the US in the Syrian war, then jump into the quagmire himself.
Laughed at Obama for being friendly with China, who supposedly stole millions of jobs, and then accept a state visit invitation right away. I am still waiting for that 45% tariff.
Bragged about improving relationship with Russia, and not even 100 days, the relationship hits new low, with Russian ships sailing into the mediterranian.
Good job. The world is a much better and safe place thanks to Trump. The Syrian people would have to thank President Trump to have their best interest in heart. Just great.
I cry inside for more unstability in Syria. It seems the Syrian people see no end of this tunnel because big countries do whatever they feel on an impulse, regardless of the long term consequence. I also cry for the poor western people like you who are completely blinded by the totally biased western media, and support the senseless agression.
You might think Trump is doing Syria a favour, guess what, so did a lot of German when Nazi invaded Poland and other neighbours. I will not look at this thread I myself created, because it hurts and angers me to see how even rational Canadians like you support wholeheartedly such a crime against a country without any justification - oh, yes, there are, a few photos. I guess that's enough to throw 59 bombs.
Just perfect. Western countries are such selfless saints...
Other Western leaders seem afraid to question America's foreign policy decisions.
Assad could have been responsible for the chemical attack, but that's still unverified. It's unfortunate that there isn't a bigger demand for an investigation into this matter. The conflict in Syria is too complex to make assumptions.
he is a only a friend when the sun is shining and is never to be trusted.
I'm assuming you are Canadian. It isn't in our interest for the Canadian government to oppose everything the U.S does, even if it doesn't really agree or even if it is right to disagree. It will make a point sure, but in the end it won't change what the U.S does. You willing to lose your car or house to make a point about U.S Foreign Policy? I don't think its in Canada's interest to agitate the U.S at every single turn. Especially someone like Trump.
In this case however, we could be arguing for decades about whether the U.S should launch cruise missile against Assad in response to the attack. It is probably fair to say that the US believed the Assad regime has used in the past and most recently used chemical weapons and it acted and at least there was some action instead of endless equivocation and inaction.
And "U.S will not tolerate a regime that flagrantly decides IT can do what it wants with the lives of innocent people esp children and babies"... wow the hypocricy is so multifold that I can't process it right away. Let's give some hint here
Why should that stop us from agreeing with the premise of these latest airstrikes?
I nor other Canadians or Americans support everything the US or the West does. No one likes missile strikes that kill 200 civilians, or them turning a blind eye on the Saudis. But, Sending the Syrian government a message with a properly executed strike on a military installation? If there is evidence of chemical attacks, yeah I support that.
It's illogical to think that because the West have done heinous things in the past, we Western citizens should accept heinous actions from other governments. It all depends on the reasoning behind the action and the likely outcomes. Trudeau did not give support for full military intervention to oust Assad; he supports actions of "limited scope" to discourage the use of chemical weapons. The chances of Assad getting ousted and creating a power vacuum has not increased; he has cemented himself as the status quo, and jets are even seeing flying out of that same airfield since. It's all about the context.
As for evidence of these latest attacks, I don't know what you're looking for. Experts have discounted Russian theories of an Syrian airstrike hitting a chemical weapons cache as being implausible (for logical reasons). Sure, the Western media can be biased and fed false info, but what are the alternative storylines? You then fall into incoherent conspiracy theories posted on fake news websites implicating George Soros. So who else did it? Assad had no logical reason of doing this to us living an ocean away, but people don't always do things for logical long-term benefits -or else the US would not have invaded Iraq.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
India and Israel are proven nuclear powers who have been responsible with their nuclear arsenal. As have Russia and China been btw! I'm fully comfortably with a nuclear armed China - they've proven themselves a competent nation in world affairs and global geopolitics by and large. I just don't want them supplanting the U.S. China and Russia and NK are completely different. Look at the way ppl live in NK as well. Its a shame and due to complete and total abysmal leadership.
