[Athens]

I have not been watching much news recently but I finally started looking into this Houla Massacre and I'm lost for words. It is one thing to read about it but when you come across blogs with the photos of what has been done to children it takes things to a entirely new level. I am pretty detached from growing up around a lot of TV violence. But the images I saw from Syria is just heart breaking.

Why the hell is NATO not getting involved with this. If there was any time I would want to see Canadian troops in harms way at war it would be for providing protection for innocent children. Not going after poppy farmers and securing oil.

The blog link im posting has some really really graphic photos. I mean I can't stress enough if you have a weak stomach or don't like seeing mangled people do NOT visit the link.

Not trying to be sensational by posting something that is a attention grabber. But words just can't describe the horrors of whats going on.

Copy/Paste it, not parsed for a reason. http://stateofmind13.com/2012/05/27/the-little-children-terrorists-of-syria/

But I really think its time to get involved in Syria. We screwed up with Bosnia and Rwanda and Darfur. Lets not screw this up.

[Athens]

Correction the photos are from the Karm Al Zeitoon site, near Houla Massacre. So I guess there have been more then one since the fighting broke out.


This is weak... but a safe political choice.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/29/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

U.S., Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada expelling the diplomats

Should be sending troops to go with it.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

But I really think its time to get involved in Syria. We screwed up with Bosnia and Rwanda and Darfur. Lets not screw this up.

The UN will get involved as soon as the Syrian government stops paying them to stay uninvolved. It's that simple. Massacres or not.

I'm always amazed at all the folks (some Left, some Right) who consider themselves dedicated human rights advocates and then stay silent on stuff like this. And Libya. And Egypt. And Iran. And Somalia (back in the day).

IF the world needs a police force (not pizza delivery) then the UN cannot be it. Too.Much.Politics.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Why the hell is NATO not getting involved with this.

Because getting involved militarily in Syria would be a highly destabilizing course of action that would likely trigger a more widespread sectarian war in the Middle East.

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by finboy 

The UN will get involved as soon as the Syrian government stops paying them to stay uninvolved. It's that simple. Massacres or not.

I'm always amazed at all the folks (some Left, some Right) who consider themselves dedicated human rights advocates and then stay silent on stuff like this. And Libya. And Egypt. And Iran. And Somalia (back in the day).

IF the world needs a police force (not pizza delivery) then the UN cannot be it. Too.Much.Politics.

The UN is useless. NATO is a far better organization for this kind of work. The problem is China and Russia. No one wants to stop on there toes over this. Syria has strong ties to both of them and Russia has been key to stalling every effort in the UN.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Because getting involved militarily in Syria would be a highly destabilizing course of action that would likely trigger a more widespread sectarian war in the Middle East.

OAW

Well that and Syria actually has a decent sized military, it wouldn't be a easy conflict like Afghanistan or the second Iraq war.

[Waragainstsleep]

You think? So many of them have had revolutions recently, surely one more wouldn't hurt?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Well that and Syria actually has a decent sized military, it wouldn't be a easy conflict like Afghanistan or the second Iraq war.

You consider 10 years easy? The first Iraq war I'd give you but the second?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You consider 10 years easy? The first Iraq war I'd give you but the second?

There is a difference between occupation and open war. Iraq was a easy win the second time around.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by athens 

iraq was a easy win the second time around.

lmfao.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Iraq was a easy win the second time around.

Especially their hearts and minds.

[Athens]

Invasion starts March 20, 2003
End of Invasion occurred May 1st 2003

40 days, 139 US Perosnal Killed, 33 UK Personal Killed. 9200 Iraqi Combatants killed and sadly 7299 Civilians.

Pretty damn easy to me.

As for the occupation this lasted a long time, part of it was hunting for Saddam Hussein, part of it was searching for weapons of mass destruction or fabricating its existence. A lot of it had to do with rebuilding Iraq oil infrastructure, and then protecting it.

[Athens]

First Gulf war, with a intact Iraq
17 January 1991 to 28 February 1991

US Personal Killed 294, of that only 114 from the Enemy

Of the enemy killed, 3,664 Iraqi civilians, and between 20,000 and 26,000 military personnel, were killed in the conflict, while 75,000 Iraqi soldiers were wounded

Pretty easy to me.

[Chongo]

There is this unfulfilled prophecy. Damascus has never been destroyed. It's one of the oldest continually inhabited cites in the world. Perhaps it's time has come.

Isaiah 17
1 An oracle concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. 2 Her cities will be deserted for ever; they will be for flocks, which will lie down, and none will make them afraid. 3 The fortress will disappear from E'phraim, and the kingdom from Damascus; and the remnant of Syria will be like the glory of the children of Israel, says the LORD of hosts.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Invasion starts March 20, 2003
End of Invasion occurred May 1st 2003

40 days, 139 US Perosnal Killed, 33 UK Personal Killed. 9200 Iraqi Combatants killed and sadly 7299 Civilians.

Are you using the customary definitions of combatants/militants/civilians or the new Obama definition?

[Athens]

Using the one that history books have published?