Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Breaking news: US Fires Missiles at Syria
Topic Started: Apr 7 2017, 01:36 AM (756 Views)
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

I feel like none of them actually grasp the gravity of the whole thing though, how would they feel seeing the charred corpses of their family and everyone they know.

Be a good test actually, anyone who still thinks it's worth it gets outed immediately.

Ah, if only.


We could probably be in space right now if it weren't for all this s*** <_<
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copy_Ninja
Member Avatar
Novacane for the pain

Cal
Apr 7 2017, 07:31 PM
As a note what is going on in Syria shouldn't be a political issue to anyone. It should be a humanitarian one. I wonder if people not in Syria would think US shouldn't get involved if it was their family being gassed to death on the streets instead of people they don't know who have been begging for help for years. Obviously US isn't clean of this as we are acting late and are still not fully accepting refugees, but this is a step in the right direction.
While I agree with your overall point, there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. This was absolutely wrong. It was a rash decision that was taken too quickly.

Like I said before, this was undeniably an illegal air strike at international law. Now, you might say 'well screw international law, we have to do something' which is an argument I'm sympathetic to but don't agree with. This stuff is important because it sets precedents over how to act in the future. There are two fundamental pillars in international relations: the sovereignty of each nation and the illegality of the use of force. The more those principles are ignored, the more they are eroded and the less useful they become. We've seen this happen over the last couple of decades. The NATO intervention in Kosovo and the War in Iraq was used by Russia as part of their justification for why they later invaded Georgia and the Ukraine.

There are principles that should be followed in situations like this. There is a norm in international law called the 'Responsibility to Protect' which states that other States have a responsibility to protect civilians when their own nation is not doing so. However, the principles of that aren't being followed. Firstly, no country should be launching attacks unilaterally, for the obvious reason that in the future any country can justify attacks on other nations. Ideally you would go for a Security Council resolution but that will never happen in Syria because of Russia's veto. So they should have started lobbying the General Assembly for a Uniting for Peace resolution, which arguably would give authority to intervene. Even with that though, these operations should be carried out as part of a coalition with the most obvious option being NATO.

You need to be careful with interventions like this too because it becomes very difficult to draw the line. There are other countries suffering at the moment other than Syria. There's possible genocide taking place in Somalia at the moment, almost half a million people have been killed in Darfur over the last decade as their conflicts escalate and de-escalate. The Central African Republic, Myanmar and Nigeria all have varying levels of civilian risks. Which ones do you intervene in? All of them? None of them? This is why it's important to have international co-operation because you can't have one country dictating which of these matters and which doesn't.

I'd also question the usefulness of the strike. Sure, it's taken out one airfield but they have more to launch jets from. And chemical weapons is far from the only threat facing the civilian population in Syria. Many more have died from barrel bombs and other indiscriminate weapons like it. You also risk antagonising Russian forces in the area. What's really needed is for a no fly zone to be implemented, better access and more protection for humanitarian workers and the establishment of safe zones defended by peacekeeping forces.

So yeah, it's a humanitarian issue and something should have been done a long time ago, I absolutely agree with that. I think the world will look back on the failure in Syria the same way we look at Rwanda today, people have suffered for the world's inaction. But not all intervention is better than doing nothing and this was an ill thought out move.
Posted ImageWe'll never be those kids again
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Theme Designed by McKee91