By creating an account, you agree to our terms of service.
Seems like we had a close-call. The Brits backed down. France (Hollande) wants war.
War has been narrowly averted thanks to Russian's president Putin. What's the opinion in YOUR country?
I think it is a funny nick name you got there. Barack Obomber. Hadn't heard it before. I have no idea about what my country thinks about yet another war *rolling eyes* because there are already internal problems that we're facing. But my personal opinion is more like a question: Why U.S. has to poke his nose into every corner of the world? They just feel they have to be coherent with their public image considering they first invaded Iraq on the argument of chemical weapons or WMD (weapon of mass destruction) which they found none and that was of course not the real reason for invasion. Being coherent means they should start a campaign in Syria since it's almost a certainty that WMD have been used. However at the end of the day, a war is a business also and if U.S. doesn't have the enough financial means, that's why they want support from other countries. But to me, they should mind their own business.
It is another episode of the american tricks series .
I hate realpolitik.
I feel sorry for the innocent people who have suffered.
Don`t you mean United States (USA)?? America is a continent, not a country
"War has been narrowly averted thanks to Russia's president Putin."
What a strange, ignorant, and ahistorical comment. There has been a "war" raging in Syria for the last two and a half years, with all of the killing done by one Muslim faction or another, including Syrians, Muslim jihadists from many countries, and Iranian Revolutionary Guards who train and fight beside Assad's troops. So far 120,000 men, women, and children have been killed in Syria without any involvement of the United States, but none of the prior commenters apparently think that is worthy of mention. And the Syrian side of the war has been fought using mostly weapons supplied by Iran and who else? .... Russian President Putin.
War.....it is invasion, destruction,chaos and death toll.
an open armed conflict,atrocities,and injurious.
peace....it is harmony...a general security for all places.
it is peace of mind and no mental stress.
In war all people will suffer from consequence. civilians, innocents old and young will be injured
if not destroyed of everything, and will be dead instantly without warning. I believed no one will like
destruction and war.accordingly america has not been directly hit, so why get involve with the internal problems of Syria. america must not attack Syria if the concern is safetyness of innocent and civilians. if america invades syria and make war...more and more innocent civilians will be injured, death toll will rise.
why not think and make a peacefull resolution. but leaders are influential people, if leaders can destroy their own people... what more to others. somehow these wmd should also be dismatled or destroyed to prevent its use to enemies of tomorrow. dismantling the WMD will gives away mental stress to the general public and the world.
Neil, we live in a global community. Do you honestly believe that we Americans have not been involved in the Syrian conflict? Yes, Americans are involved with Syria.
The U.S. has bought 640 million barrels of oil from Russia since 2002 at an average price of $80 per barrell which equals $50 billion. Americans are addicted to oil, and they are dependent on Russian oil. Perhaps, it would be wise for the United States to cooperate with the Russian diplomatic efforts to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria. The American government shouldn't do anything rash or stupid that would cause the Russian government to become upset at America. If Russia were to stop selling its valuable oil to the United States, then there would be an oil shortage in America; and this would cripple the American economy.
American oil consumers have enabled the Russia government to help finance the Syrian government and the Syrian military, because of all the money that Russia's government receives when Americans buy Russian oil.
Shill66. According to your logic, if Country A buys a lawful product from Country B, and the government of Country B uses the proceeds of the sale – along with all the other revenues available to County B – to provide weapons for County C, then Country A is responsible for the misuse of the funds by Country B. You conclude that the US is partially responsible for the deaths of 120,000 Syrians killed with weapons supplied to Syria by Iran and Russia because the US - “addicted to oil” -- purchased 640 million barrels of Russian oil over the last 11 years.
Let’s examine your logic: It is my understanding that the people of Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatamala, Honduras, India, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and The Philippines are addicted to food. In the last decades, each of those countries, and dozens of other countries besides, have purchased enormous quantities of food from the United States government to feed their food addiction. Each of these countries has paid money to the United States government. According to your own logic – not mine – each of the these countries who have purchased food and paid money to the United States, share the responsibility for any wrongs the US government commits or has committed, because the money paid by the food importing nations has partially financed the actions of the US government.
Carried to its logical conclusion, your thesis leads to a conclusion that the nations of the word must cease trading with each other. This is because every nation commits wrongs; and any other country purchasing a product from a nation committing that wrong would be an abettor.
Shill66. In another Discussion entitled “Security Council”, you wrote: “If a national leader were suspected of ordering chemical attacks against civilians, then shouldn't the alleged international criminal be allowed the opportunity to have a fair trial which is conducted by an International Crimes Tribunal?” I responded to your comment. However, you either did not see my response there, or decided not to respond. Perhaps you would kindly respond here. Here is the response I wrote to you:
“Let's suppose that Bashar al-Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons. I assume you're not talking about trying Assad in absentia, because that would not prevent him from continuing to use chemical weapons. Therefore, just out of curiosity, precisely who do you think should arrest Assad for trial, and by what means will they arrest him? What if Assad announces that he will resist any attempted arrest militarily? Or, since you didn't mention Assad by name, but instead mentioned "a national leader", suppose that evidence turns up that Russian President Vladimir Putin provided chemical weapons to Assad, or assisted Assad in using such weapons. Who will arrest the Russian President, and how? Unless you can provide rational answers to such questions, your suggestion that a national leader who ordered chemical weapon attacks against civilians be tried, remains more in the realm of a fantasy, rather than a practical, doable solution.”
So I ask you again: can you explain rationally to the readers on italki your views on who will arrest the Syrian and Russian presidents, and how will they do it? We'll wait on pins and needles for your reply.
@"If Russia were to stop selling its valuable oil to the United States, then there would be an oil shortage in America; and this would cripple the American economy." The loss of that oil revenue wouldn't hurt Russia's economy? In any case, the US could make up that amount by buying from other producers. I've heard a lot of ridiculous arguments about Syrian intervention, but this one takes the prize.