Can War work?

[Minimalist]

In that case why don't we do what is best for us.....for a change.

What do you think that would entail? Can we afford to allow those chemical weapons to find their way into terrorist hands.

Which bunch of nutty muslims are you rooting for. I hate to break this to you G-C but I know reality isn't your strong suit. They can't stand you and your bullshit, either.

[Autumnlicious]

I don't know what to believe any more.

On one hand, warfare in the Middle East has been defined that when one side begins to win, both become vicious in retributions.

On the other, the US has tarnished it's local and international image so much that countries like Russia can point and laugh while sucking East Orthodox cock...

It seems plausible that Assad would use chemical weapons as a punitive measure. It also is plausible that this is made up.

A pox upon all houses.

[Tiberius]

The west can't afford wars anymore, so nomatter what they accomplish, they are going to be failures, leaving the west in even more massive amounts of debt.

What, honestly, do we gain from going to war? The Assad regime may have killed a few hundred or thousand people, but so have the Saudis, the Chinese, and the North Koreans. We won't go to war with them, so why are we going to war with Syria?

Policing the world is not our job, and we generally suck at it when we try to do it anyway. Defend when attacked, and limit it to that in my opinion.

[Captain Colostomy]

Defend when attacked, and limit it to that in my opinion.

Not always a good idea, that. Sometimes a pre-emptive strike stalls aggression that would likely be worse left unchecked. I'm not condoning vaporization of every perceived threat imaginable, but limiting your options with conscientious objection can undermine security.

We need to beef up our spy and assassin networks to help minimize the size and scope of these threats before they go genocidal...and/or global.

[Rayaan]

It seems plausible that Assad would use chemical weapons as a punitive measure. It also is plausible that this is made up.

Yeah, and today I saw an article that supports that.

Experts Doubt Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims

[...]

The evidence so far for the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army is second-hand and comes from a biased source.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/i...ndals.html

[Violet]

You know, that's a strategy I haven't tried in Civ starting with Civ 1. City goes into revolt, raze the city.

Somehow I think it might not work so well.

Well, once you actually become good at the game... you can do what you damn well fucking please I ask you: WHO is the despot?

YOU is the despot!

---

I'm disappointed that there is no option to kill just the dissenters, particularly when in Despotism.

What unhappy citizens? Oh you mean the ones with their heads on pikes lining the city walls? Why do you ask, citizen? Are you unhappy too?

Seems a little dark for the company that makes the games... but I would start playing them in earnest if I could do that.

A non-niche use for despotism? No wai.

---

If Civilization were a multiplayer game, I surely would seek you out as an ally.

With your opposition being me... you'd need all the help you could get.

---

Policing the world is not our job, and we generally suck at it when we try to do it anyway. Defend when attacked, and limit it to that in my opinion.

And then the age of imperialism shall begin anew

---

Not always a good idea, that. Sometimes a pre-emptive strike stalls aggression that would likely be worse left unchecked. I'm not condoning vaporization of every perceived threat imaginable, but limiting your options with conscientious objection can undermine security.

We need to beef up our spy and assassin networks to help minimize the size and scope of these threats before they go genocidal...and/or global.

Nono, I agree: kill everyone else. Can't trust them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tlqxXRzA1k

Or, I don't know, you could be a bit more minimalistic

[kılıç_mehmet]

The situation is Sytia is moving faster and faster towards a point at which Wetern military intervention could hapen. Turkey is gearing up it`s defences and forces at the border and both the European and American leadership seem to be preparing for war.

In recent history military intervention have had bad press, especial when remembering the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. But hardly anyone remembers and talks about successfull interventions such as the 2 French interventions in Ivory coast during the past 10 years, the US intervaention during the Balkan wars and the 1990 gulf war.

I want to ask you if you think military intervention could work in Syria and if yes how should it be done?

Turkey is gearing up the defences and forces it should use to snuff out terrorists, in order to fight against Syria eh?
Turkey and Syria are enemies, and were enemies ever since the conception of Syria as an independent country, and Syria has supported the said terrorists for years. Though a war will not be one of revenge.
We will go to war on the whims and demands of some foreign master, one that controls our goverment.
As Obama has said, no US soldier will ever set foot on Syria. Meaning, we will be the footsoldiers, and they will bring forth the support fire. How refreshing. And in the end, we won't even cash in any profits from it.
I'm sick of this whole NATO thing.

However, Syria is indeed a threat to us as it is. Daily, refugees swarm into our beloved lands, polluting the air with their stench, cashing in money siphoned from our taxes, and entering universities without taking eliminary exams.
Perhaps if we stop this madness, it would stop the influx of these refugees, as the current arab-loving government has granted many Syrian nationals citizenship already.

HOWEVER...Assad is not alone. Mind you, if the NATO support the rebels with weapons and propaganda, at the same time, Assad is bolstered by countries such as Iran, and perhaps even Russia and China.
Iran is Shia, much like Assad, Russia&China are not moslem countries, and have no ties to secterian differences that fuel this conflict.

Any NATO intervention may not go as easily as it went with North African countries....
I'd say, play your cards carefully. Because both Assad and the Rebels have sizable supporters both domestic and foreign, although the Rebels are bolstered by further Sunni militia from abroads.

---

The west can't afford wars anymore, so nomatter what they accomplish, they are going to be failures, leaving the west in even more massive amounts of debt.

What, honestly, do we gain from going to war? The Assad regime may have killed a few hundred or thousand people, but so have the Saudis, the Chinese, and the North Koreans. We won't go to war with them, so why are we going to war with Syria?

Policing the world is not our job, and we generally suck at it when we try to do it anyway. Defend when attacked, and limit it to that in my opinion.

My dear friend, this is not about policing the world. This is about taking a stance, making a point, much like during the Korean and Vietnam war. I have not seen any of these wars, as I was born much later, however, I see the logical reasoning behind them, and see a moral standpoint behind them. Back in those days, there was the threat of Communism. Communism was lending open help to any and all communist insurgency around the world, and created civil wars in countries such as Korea and Vietnam.

Today, the roles are reversed. The standart bearer of capitalism, the US of A, is doing the same job as the commies did during the cold war, starting civil wars, and funding insurgencies. IF you do that, you'll have people opposing you, of course.
Unlike Iraq, this had started out as a proxy war, cold war style. Now if America steps in, someone else will do the same for Assad. I just wonder who will it be?