Join Date: May 2008
Location: Queens, NY
Join Date: Jul 2012
Join Date: Aug 2013
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ya 'Unties Ovaries
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Florida
MY FS THREAD , CHEAP ASS SHIT : http://hypebeast.com/forums/apparel/178540/
Join Date: Jul 2008
Dear Virunga, You have received an infraction at Hypebeast Forums. Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Them Grimey Streets...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: new york city
Join Date: Jan 2008
Join Date: May 2007
Join Date: Jul 2012
i think this meme is kinda dumb, cus they didnt need to intervene for any of the other shit, let em figure their own shit out, but the chem weapons they do need to punish them because countries agreed not to use that shit since back in ww1, i think it was gay as fuck also how the other countries backed off too,
This links with my earlier post really, horrific things have been going on there for a while, any info on the political intervention that the West supposedly tried before, that failed and has led to military intervention being proposed?
taste the glamour
Join Date: Apr 2010
Copy and pasted from Similar thread. This is all from Memory. None of it will be properly referenced. This may be more detailed that you need, but other may find it useful, and also, some of the issues mentioned earlier on become important later on.This world is mad tbh
INTRODUCTION Syria is 'run' by the Al-Assad family. It has been for many years. The Assad's are member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam.
Long story short, pretty soon after Islam was founded, Shia and Sunnis split. And they hate each other in the way that only former friends can.
REGIONAL BALANCE OF POWER Up until 2003, Iran was the only majority Shia country on the planet. Every other muslim country was EITHER 1) A sunni Majority, or 2) Had a Sunni ruler in place. This was the cause of the civil war in Iraq, Saddam had been Sunni, but the country was majority Shia.
Syria is a majority Sunni country, BUT, the ruling group (Asad's) are Shia. There is also a sizeable Christain minority. Iran and Syria are close, as they are both Shia governed countries. But Syria, as mentioned, is different to Iran in that Shia are the minority.
The other major country to note here is Saudia Arabia. Sunni Islam, and really dislike Shia muslims.
ARAB SPRING In Early 2011, a fruit vendor in Tunisia, protesting against corruption and the difficulty in eeking out a subsistence, set himself on fire, and with him, went the whole region. Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Eygpt, Yemen and Syria all saw significant protests against the ruling Parties (Countries where living was not as difficult/the ruling party was popular/ countries were better governed saw some protests, but generally, concessions were made and agreements were reached). They all ended differently.
Morrocco and Alegeria saw the Monarchs make promises/ reprimand the government, promise increased freedoms. This combined with the better local living conditions saw the protests peeter out. Bahrain put down their protests with no aversion to violence. The west kept relatively quiet about this. Tunisia, Yemen and Eygpt saw their governments overthrown.
Only in Libya and Syria did it go to an all out civil war. In Libya, Gaddaffi was already unpopular with the west for his state-sponsorship of terrorism. Assad had generally flown under the radar, but people didn't like him as he was close to Iran (for reasons mentioned earlier).
WHAT RUSSIA AND SYRIA LEARNT FROM LIBYA. Gaddaffi, already a cartoon villian in the west, went out 'guns blazing' against the protester-come-rebels. Uprisings in various cities (Bengahzi etc) were being put down. Libya's limited airforce was proving a decisive factor both militarially and psychologically. Before long, it was clear to the rebels that victory, without air assets would be costly and expensive. To drive this point home, Gaddaffis air assets were hitting civilian and military targets as if to suggest that there was nothing they could do to resist him. No-where to hide.
The UN Secuirty Counsel, as a result of air assets being used in civilians, passed a resolution enforcing a no-fly-zone over Libya. (Note about the UNSC. It is 15 members, but the 5 that count are the 5 victorious powers from WWII, Russia, China, USA, UK and France. They all have a 'Veto' ie, if something is proposed for the UNSC to do, any 1 of these 5 can veto it, and it is dead, no matter the opinion of the other 14 members. In practice this means convincing Russia and China to let the resolutions that US/Uk/'the west' want to go through, to be allowed to pass.)
The idea being that Libyan air planes would no longer be free to bomb civilians. However, at the risk of using imflamatory terminology, China and Russia were upset at how 'Protection of Civilians' turned into 'UK/US providing air support to Rebels to oust Gaddaffi'. The Wests air support sung the tide of battle and Tripoli fell to the Rebels weeks later. Gaddaffi was found in a ditch and shot. Government of 40+ years over. Democracy? We'll see.
RUSSIA: 'FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU'. This left just one country in a state of flux. Syria. Already unpopular with the west due to it's 'closeness' to Iran, Syria's unpopularity deepened when the Government refused to make deomcratic reform (objectionable to 'Western Countries') and started cracking down on/ torturing pro-democracy supporters (really objectionable to 'Western Countries').
Russia was much more attached to Syria. It's closer geographically, culturally, economically. Russia liked the Government in Syria, and frankly, Russia isn't too fussed if you are heavy-handed with protestors. But most importantly. Russia only Port in the Mediterrainian Sea is in Syria. If it loses that, no russian warships could be in the Mediterrainian except as Turkey or UK/Spain permit.
So, for economic, cultural and religious reasons. SYRIA IS NOT SO MUCH IMPORTANT TO THE WEST, AS IT IS IMPORTANT TO RUSSIA AND IRAN. AND THE LOSS OF THE ASSAD GOVERNMENT IN SYRIA WOULD REPRESENT A BLOW TO RUSSIA AND IRAN. ALSO, ALL THE TORTURE AND REPRESSION BY ASSAD MAKES THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT VERY UNPOPULAR IN THE WEST.
So when Western Governments came to the UNSC and said 'We must do for Syria what we did for Libya', the Russians and Chinese shut that down. No way. Not going to happen. Without a UNSC mandate to intervene, any action would be in breach of international law. Which brings us too...
'WESTERN' DEMOCRATIC VALUES The West likes to support people who will be democratic and follow international laws. To this end, Obama has stated that the use of Chemical weapons in Syria would represent a 'red line' which would trigger NATO intervention, regardless of UNSC approval. Fact is, if you are going to break with international law and invade a country, you need a damn good excuse. Chemcial weapons are such an excuse.
Fair or not, Western Countries are seen as protectors world-wide. When the Genocide in Rwanda happened, it was condemned as a War Crime. But who was responsible for sitting back and doing nothing? US, Canada, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Spain 'Western Countries'. No-one blamed the Chinese or Russians for their failure to act.
Casting themselves in this role, it is these countries that people look to for support against dictators.
CHANGING NATURE OF THE REBELLIION The rebels, when originally formed, were seen in a almost universally positive light, defectors from a corrupt regieme, and brave freedom fighters looking to overthrow a dictator.
As time went on, and as more and more focus was placed on the rebels, Western Governments grew suspicious that these were not/were no longer brave freedom fighters, but Al Qieda/ Taliban/ Anti-West fighters, who were interesting in using the fluid state of Syria to win the rebellion and set up a hardline muslim country.
WHERE DOES THAT ALL LEAVE US? Time and again the West calls for democratic reform. And will support rebels with this goal. The West finds the repression of protests, along with the torture of protesters and the use of chemical weapons particularly objectionable. This, and Syria's relationship to Iran, and Russia, particularly the projection of Russian sea power, has meant that the west sees Syria as a Government, which if it were to fall, would not be missed. Knowing that UNSC approval for military intervention would be impossible, President Obama stated that UNSC approval or no, we'd go and take out the Syrians if Chemical weapons were used.
Chemcials weapons have been used, but we can not confirm by whom.
So we watch, and we wait. Russia has made it obvious that it will stand by Syria. Whether that means actual military actions against US and other western nations should they try to intervene in Syria, it's not clear. Also the problem of after-math rears its ugly head. Since the 'Red line' comment, there are more and more indicators, that the Rebels might not just be freedom fights, but islamists and others, who would establish a Islamic state. It is important to note, that this would be a Sunnni islamic state, as most of these fighters come from Sunni countries. And if there was a Sunni Islamic state, you can be fairly sure that teh Shia minority would have a torrid time, after the events of the past few weeks. A genocide could be possible. And stopping that sort of shit is why the West wanted to go in to Syria in the first place. Annoyingly, it could be that Assad would be the least brutal ruler of Syria.
CONCLUSIONS The Fact is, who is running Syria and why we should be involved is not as important to us as it is to other Countries. Russia and Iran both, for different reasons, like the Syrian Government and want it to stay in Power. Saudia Arabia, USA's close ally, dislike Syria, for mainly religious reasons, and want them gone. And finally, Western Governments find their approach to the pro-democracy protests as well as the use of chemical weapons an unacceptable way for a government to behave.
The West doesn't like them, the West regional allies don't like them. And they support the West Geo-political opponents. Thats the reason.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Join Date: Apr 2008
on one level, i don't like all these US interventions because it strains our economy and makes life more difficult for citizens.One could argue that in some ways, the US can be seen as a small contributor to some injustices in the world...
on the other hand, i applaud what the US is doing all over the world. someone out there has to combat injustice and tyranny in developing countries otherwise the world will go to shit.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Join Date: Dec 2011
Join Date: Jul 2012
We are that annoying "friend" that invades others privacy. All we need to do is dig deeper into the debt we owe and cause a very possible WW3. I seriously am beginning to hate what this country is and what it stands for. There are no thinkers anymore, everyone depends on technology and does what is expected, this generation is a failure.lowkey ww2 was the reason we got out of our last financial depression
Join Date: Dec 2011
You can not compare the 1930s to today's economy. The reason WW2 got us out of the Great Depression was because major factories/industries in Europe and Japan were destroyed and American industries were able to dominate the market. Also many industries converted to creating items for the war, like automobiles, guns, ammo, etc. which allowed small businesses to expand sell items to the general public (created more jobs). Lastly the GI bill allowed many military personal to buy homes and go to college for a low fee, which increased the population with more "knowledgeable" people, therefore increasing the technology for that era, which then created more jobs.We are that annoying "friend" that invades others privacy. All we need to do is dig deeper into the debt we owe and cause a very possible WW3. I seriously am beginning to hate what this country is and what it stands for. There are no thinkers anymore, everyone depends on technology and does what is expected, this generation is a failure.lowkey ww2 was the reason we got out of our last financial depression
Join Date: May 2010
Someone was paying attention in AP US History.You can not compare the 1930s to today's economy. The reason WW2 got us out of the Great Depression was because major factories/industries in Europe and Japan were destroyed and American industries were able to dominate the market. Also many industries converted to creating items for the war, like automobiles, guns, ammo, etc. which allowed small businesses to expand sell items to the general public (created more jobs). Lastly the GI bill allowed many military personal to buy homes and go to college for a low fee, which increased the population with more "knowledgeable" people, therefore increasing the technology for that era, which then created more jobs.
Join Date: Jun 2011
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBuddyOmar?feature=mhee |||||||||||||| Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/buddy_omar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Join Date: Jan 2013
Join Date: Jun 2011