Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 271
  1. #101
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    Peace doesn't just happen. MLK Jr. is a great role model, but don't forget it took 31,000 national guard soldiers to integrate Ole Miss.
    Sure it does.

    It took peaceful protest to remove India, population over 750 million, from British rule. Weapons aren't needed to solve all problems. United people are. Unforunately Syria is not united, they are in a civil war. How would you feel if another country was planning to bomb the crap out of the USA during its own civil war? Not so smug I would bet.

    The last military intervention to free a country by USA (Iraq) involved the killing of 1.4 million Iraqi citizens. USA continues to use drone missile strikes to kill individuals without any sort of "due process" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is called overextending power and acting as world police I think.

    If USA did not want a war to last this long, or to not insult Syria this badly by causing so much strife, they should not have been arming rebels with anti-air guns, rifles, grenades, and the whole laundry list of weapons that will just make the situation worse. Russia supplies Assad, USA supplies rebels: this is known. Both countries only escalated the fight so they could sell weapons. Now USA is unhappy because they used chemical weapons so they can stop a war that they helped ignite, fantastic.

    This is a category of weapons that the world has agreed upon as particularly horrible. WE KNOW what they do to people and how that makes it impossible to provide first response.

    This type of chemical weapon (sarin if that is correct) is a weapon of mass destruction the way the term is meant to be used. I wonder how people like you would react to a dirty bomb nuke or a backpack nuke that kills 10,000. Barely anything compared to 100,000 right? No response necessary?


    Fun fact: USA is one of the few countries to still have chemical weapons. In fact, they promised to destroy their weapons stockpile, but still have not complied with this goal. If it is so bad, why do you have your own chemical weapons? They aren't a deterrent like nuclear weapons, so what's the point?

    And USA intelligence and judgment on this matter cannot be trusted, to put it frankly. The UN has been unable to determine who even committed these strikes, and USA is willing to use it's own hidden evidence as rationale to invade the sovereignty of another nation?

    What is the end game of these strikes? What is the event trying to be achieved?
    UK doesn't trust them, or their decision. India doesn't. Brazil doesn't. Russia doesn't.

    The fact is USA doesn't even know what it will do, or what will replace the Assad government if it falls.

    Some people act like you are helping Syria by supporting "rebels" with military intervention who are not even Syrian, but mostly jihadists and muslim extremists... is going to make the country better. It didn't work in Afghanistan obviously when USA helped train jihadists to fight the Soviets. Oh, but that was under the guise of helping rebels protect their country too I guess?

    Fun fact 2: USA is one of the only countries to actually USE chemical weapons.

    Why didn't USA punish Iraq for using chemical weapons in the 1980s on it's own population killing 5000 people? Because as leaked by wikileaks, Donald Rumsfeld helped Iraq obtain those chemical weapons, surprise surprise.

    Why didn't USA punish Iraq in 1990s for using chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran and Iraq war? Because USA was helping supply them. Nice.

    Who is going to punish USA for using chemical weapons in Vietnam such as Napalm, DDT, soilents, and other chemicals to literally destroy the land and poison its people? USA killed and deformed hundreds of thousands of children in this event. Where is the UN retribution for this act for the murder and deformity of over 1 million persons?

    1. It is horrible that people are dying and there should have been peace.

    How would you have made that peace? We have embargoed Syria we have called for them to go to Geneva (not just Assad said no, the rebels have no clue who is in charge and can't agree who would show up to negotiate).

    Are you claiming that an Army of people with blue helmets should have been sent in. When has that ever worked? Oh and Russia and China would have blocked it anyway.


    If USA wanted to save the other 95,000 Syrians/rebels/jihadists/Syrian army members from dying, they should have talked about intervening in any sort of way over 2 years ago.

    The interest after chemical weapons is a facade. USA is simply being drawn into another proxy war, and trying to sell their intervention as "doing the right thing." USA simply wants to erase Iranian and Syrian influence off the map, that is the only goal. And this will delight USA's allies Saudi Arabia and Iraq who are militarily and religiously opposed to the other 2.

    Bombing the Assad government is just like what was done to Iraq. Iraq's entire military and secret services were disbanded (by the USA!) and has left the country in a shell of what it once was, with little security to defend against jihadists who still regularly bomb the country and kill tens of people everyday.

    Why are you so convinced USA government wants to do the right thing? Americans supporting this intervention sound more like jihadists everday. Tear down the government of other countries in civil war, because we can.

    They don't give a shit about the right thing. They are intervening in other countries using powerful influence of money, resources, and now military intervention, to further USA interests and USA interests only.

    If USA and NATO were doing the right thing, we'd be sprawled across North Africa saving people from terrorist organizations there ripping those countries to shreds. But no, we have to dismantle the Middle East instead, because we just have to control the whole fucking world from our couches.
    Last edited by rockman29; 06-09-2013 at 09:15 PM.

  2. #102
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    It took peaceful protest to remove India, population over 750 million, from British rule.
    Then clearly you glossed over all the riots, rebellions and reprisals that went in with the Indian independence movement. Gandhi may have been a pacifist, but the Indian people certainly were not.

    Also, India, united? Have you checked a map recently?
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  3. #103
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    Did I say it was perfect? All I said it is required no military intervention.

    The fact of religious and sectarian tensions between Punjabis, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians is here nor there in the discussion of Syria, and neither is the fight over Kashmir between India and the "newly formed" Pakistan.

    USA waited for Syria to be effed up. They helped the rebels prolong this war. Russia helped Assad prolong this war.

    Something needs to be done, but the belief that there is a magic bullet in intervention at this point to solve this humanitarian crisis, which there is simply none, is a pipe dream.

    Bombing Syria will destabilize an already very destabilized country. In other words... it will do next to nothing. It will be destabilized before the strikes under Assad, and it will be destabilized after the strikes without him.

    The strikes are not a solution. If they stop the war, more power to it. But what's way, way more important is what happens after this civil and proxy war is over.

    And what should have been done should have been done 2 years ago. But unfortunately the fixed and falsely held belief (aka delusion) that USA simply wants to do the right thing now is bullshit.
    Last edited by rockman29; 06-09-2013 at 09:30 PM.

  4. #104
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Did I say it was perfect? All I said it is required no military intervention.
    Except, y'know, a World War. Hell, there were battalions looking to fight for the Japanese just so their imperialist masters could be Asian rather than European.

    For that matter, we have an Indian rebellion to thank for keeping GB's attention during the American revolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    The fact of religious and sectarian tensions between Punjabis, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians is here nor there in the discussion of Syria, and neither is the fight over Kashmir between India and the "newly formed" Pakistan.
    Oh wow, religious and sectarian tensions have nothing to do with the discussion of Syria?

    Holy shit. I think I gotta sit down for this one.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  5. #105
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    It took peaceful protest to remove India, population over 750 million, from British rule. Weapons aren't needed to solve all problems. United people are.
    Except as Nalano pointed out that wasn't really what happened. Diplomacy without force, whatever that force may be, is impotent. If you come up to me and tell me to stop stealing your grain and I'm a heartless bastard, I'm not going to stop until I know there are consequences for it. The Syrian Government and the Rebels answer to nobody.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Fun fact: USA is one of the few countries to still have chemical weapons. In fact, they promised to destroy their weapons stockpile, but still have not complied with this goal. If it is so bad, why do you have your own chemical weapons? They aren't a deterrent like nuclear weapons, so what's the point?

    For the same reason Smallpox is still around - it may have some use in the future. For the record they're designed for retaliatory use, not first-strike, though that means little really I'll grant you that.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    The UN has been unable to determine who even committed these strikes, and USA is willing to use it's own hidden evidence as rationale to invade the sovereignty of another nation?

    I don't support any sort of intervention in Syria, but the fact that the state may or may not have done it doesn't really mean much. Somebody did, and it must have been an organised military force to have the capability to manufacture and effectively deliver the payload. If it wasn't the state, that suggests it was the rebels, unless you want to go down a conspiracy nutjob path.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Fun fact 2: USA is one of the only countries to actually USE chemical weapons. Blah blah punish Iraq etc...

    Iraq was punished for its use of nerve agents (Iraq being one of the few states to ever deploy nerve agents in military action, while the US hasn't used nerve agents for military deployment ever). What, did the Gulf War not happen or something? And the US is one of many nations to use chemical weapons throughout history... just about everyone was using respiratory agents during World War 1, but chemical and biological warfare predates even the modern era.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Who is going to punish USA for using chemical weapons in Vietnam such as Napalm, DDT, soilents, and other chemicals to literally destroy the land and poison its people? USA killed and deformed hundreds of thousands of children in this event. Where is the UN retribution for this act for the murder and deformity of over 1 million persons?
    Naplam isn't a chemical weapon, it's an incendiary weapon. No less dangerous but at least get your terms right. DDT wasn't used as a chemical weapon, it was used to control mosquitos and malaria, although its indiscriminate use at the very least was bad for some animal populations (and probably toxic to humans too). By far the worst use of chemical weapons by the US was Agent Orange. But as I said, without an actual threat of force, sanctions and diplomacy and blustering accomplishes nothing. The US wasn't punished because nobody could punish the US. The only state during that time period who could have done so was the USSR, and that would have led to a nuclear war.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  6. #106
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    I don't support any sort of intervention in Syria, but the fact that the state may or may not have done it doesn't really mean much. Somebody did, and it must have been an organised military force to have the capability to manufacture and effectively deliver the payload. If it wasn't the state, that suggests it was the rebels, unless you want to go down a conspiracy nutjob path.
    This. The question as to the use of chemical weapons is pretty much answered. What good we can do, however, is a very difficult problem that must be considered before action is taken.

    1) As Misnomer has pointed out, you can't just airdrop humanitarian aid and expect it to get to the right people. We tried that in Somalia and the food and medical supplies just ended up in the hands of the warlords. We tried that in Afghanistan and the food and money just ended up in the hands of the warlords. As it stands, however, the US is already pretty much running all the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, and the US is already the source of the vast majority of aid given - both public and private - to the people who escaped that hellhole. We're the leaders on that front, and you should recognize this - a lot of the world does, and thanks us for it.

    2) You can't suppress violence without boots on the ground. As we're not going to flood the area with an army of blue helmets (because nobody wants to go), we'd have to flood the area with American GIs. This is not going to happen: The American people are simply not going to allow the government to start another long war. In fact, considering how we conducted the last two, even if the American people weren't unbelievably war-weary and even if the government wasn't incredibly over-stretched in finances, we couldn't get the political will to recruit and pay for enough troops to occupy the whole country in an effective manner at the best of times.

    That leaves bombing a la Libya - except this fighting has gone on longer than Libya and the fighters are a lot more radicalized and the infighting among the different factions is already exploding amid the rebels - or simply watching them kill each other and step back because we can do little without being dragged in a la Iraq: Destroying the Shia power structure only to watch the Sunnis and Kurds kill everybody, just like we destroyed the Sunni power structure only to watch the Shiites and Kurds kill everybody. We never had the sort of army needed to suppress that sort of full-on violence and we won't now.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  7. #107
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    Somebody did, and it must have been an organised military force to have the capability to manufacture and effectively deliver the payload. If it wasn't the state, that suggests it was the rebels, unless you want to go down a conspiracy nutjob path.
    Not at all, this is the misinformation you are just making up unfortunately.

    Why do you need a military force to manufacture Sarin gas?

    All you need is chemicals or a chemical company, or a terrorist group.

    The Aum Shinrikyo group in Japan notoriously used Sarin gas against Japanese people in a subway. They only released a small amount but managed to kill 15 people and make 150 people sick. Are they are military force? Paramilitary? No, they are bunch of nutjob idiots who made or purchased the materials to make the gas themselves.

    You don't need a sophisticated delivery method to deliver a "payload." You can launch bags of cocaine and meth over the US-Mexico border using catapults, which is actually done. You can use large slingshots to lob grenades great distances, which is being done in Syria and there are many pictures of this.

    Naplam isn't a chemical weapon, it's an incendiary weapon. No less dangerous but at least get your terms right. DDT wasn't used as a chemical weapon, it was used to control mosquitos and malaria, although its indiscriminate use at the very least was bad for some animal populations (and probably toxic to humans too). By far the worst use of chemical weapons by the US was Agent Orange. But as I said, without an actual threat of force, sanctions and diplomacy and blustering accomplishes nothing. The US wasn't punished because nobody could punish the US. The only state during that time period who could have done so was the USSR, and that would have led to a nuclear war.


    Yes I mixed it up with Agent Orange. Agent Orange is the chemical they used to kill INCREDIBLE amounts of people in Vietnam. There has been no action taken against Dow Chemical or the US Army or the US government for perpetrating this devastation on Vietnam. This killed people, caused stillbirths, birth malformations and deformities, and poisoned and disabled people as well. In the order of a million people. And no action was taken against the US. The US has JUST begun in 2012, over 25 years later, to take action to help clean it, but that is not NEARLY enough and the Vietnamese can attest to that.



    Oh how proud we should be of DOW Chemical (NYSE and very successful) for poisoning and killing so many people. Great job DOW, great job US army, great job US government.

    Also napalm, and white phosphorous, can be considered chemical weapons. They are not conventional explosives, they are accelerants... hence why they are extremely flammable. I'm not even sure if it's legal for a country to use napalm, because it is so indiscriminant in killing, just like it's no longer legal for any country to use cluster bomb attacks, because they are similarly non discriminant and many of the bombs don't explode and leave nice land mines for the survivors to die upon.

    I wasn't serious about "dropping humanitarian aid." If that wasn't obvious, oh well.

    What I am serious about is the utter and despicable mismanagement of the crisis.

    If NATO wanted to do something to actually help people, they wouldn't have promoted fighting by saying that "we must arm the rebels" as USA just loves to do. Give them machine guns! Give them rocket launchers! Give them grenades! Give them the tools they need to make this the biggest pool of shit and death ever!

    If NATO actually wanted to help people, they would probably have intervened when the death tolls were reaching 20,000 and 30,000 in the first 6 months. But they didn't.

    They absolutely do not give a shit about the people there, they want to win a tactical war. This is not humanitarian or "good" of USA to do to bomb the shit out of Syria now. They want to because it will destabilize the country of Syria and hurt Iran, which is Syria's only middle eastern ally. And hurting an ally of Iran is hurting Iran.

    Iraq was punished for its use of nerve agents (Iraq being one of the few states to ever deploy nerve agents in military action, while the US hasn't used nerve agents for military deployment ever).
    OK, what was the punishment? They used it in 1983 to kill Kurds in their own country, and they also used it in the Iran-Iraq war, in which USA was allied with Iraq.

    Last time I checked, USA was HELPING Iraq while it was using chemical weapons against Iran. And it was helping supply them! So technically, USA has a hand in their use in the Iran-Iraq war.... how.... expected.

    Oh and guess what the Iran Iraq war was about... border disputes and sectarian violence between Shia (Iraq) and Shiite (Iran) muslims.... whoop dee doo. Now USA can finish the job it helped start in the Iran Iraq war that it wanted to achieve... decimating Iran like it has to the rest of the Middle East.... hurray...... look how efficient we can export democracy with Tomahawk missiles!!!

    Except as Nalano pointed out that wasn't really what happened. Diplomacy without force, whatever that force may be, is impotent. If you come up to me and tell me to stop stealing your grain and I'm a heartless bastard, I'm not going to stop until I know there are consequences for it. The Syrian Government and the Rebels answer to nobody.


    Yea and don't you see now why there is a problem with "arming the rebels" who don't answer to anybody? To prolong the war? Cause more strife?

    USA has a hand in this war, and their narrative and Western narrative has been universally... we must arm the fucking rebels, even though they are equally as big pieces of shit as the Syrian government, but we won't tell anyone this.

    John McCain, this big republican asshole, along with all the other US senators and politicians, including Obama, including the VP, promoted arming rebels as if THEY were the answer to this conflict.

    For 2 years that's what they've been doing. And none of them will ever have to answer for prolonging the conflict and turning it into the cesspool of shit it is now. No one will put them in jail for their responsibilities in prolonging a war no one wants.

    Oh wow, religious and sectarian tensions have nothing to do with the discussion of Syria?

    Holy shit. I think I gotta sit down for this one.


    Were you trying to go full tard and suggest that there are Buddhist, Hindus and Punjabis and Christians in Syria trying to destroy the country?

    Would you like to draw some more parallels between the Syrian Civil War and British Occupation of India? Please continue.... I'm dying to hear.

    If all you are interested in is e-peen oneupmanship, please indicate that more obviously.

    1. I have faith that our elected leaders can put aside their partisan differences and get us in a war we don't want.

    3. Only 29% of Americans want to attack Syria. On the plus side 29% of Americans know there is a place called 'Syria'
    Last edited by rockman29; 07-09-2013 at 03:49 AM.

  8. #108
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Why do you need a military force to manufacture Sarin gas? All you need is chemicals or a chemical company, or a terrorist group.
    That works fine for gassing an enclosed subway as an isolated act of terror, not delivering a payload via mortar fire into townships. Also given that the areas targeted were rebel towns, that suggests either it was the state or an agent acting on behalf of the state who undertook the attacks. Syria is known to possess chemical weapons and have previously employed them during the war. I seriously doubt the rebels would gas their own territory. Exactly what are you suggesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    You can launch bags of cocaine and meth over the US-Mexico border using catapults
    You know what? I can dissect a frog. That doesn't make me qualified to perform neurosurgery.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    There has been no action taken against Dow Chemical or the US Army or the US government for perpetrating this devastation on Vietnam.

    Weren't they taken to court? But outside of that I agreed with you, but I noted that they weren't punished because who was going to punish them? Impotent fury doesn't accomplish anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Also napalm, and white phosphorous, can be considered chemical weapons.

    No they aren't, they're incendiary devices - they burn through heat energy. Something having chemicals in them does not make them a chemical weapon. Hell a conventional bullet would be a chemical weapon by that broad definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    OK, what was the punishment?
    Christ just look at Iraq. Iraq's abuse of human rights and their deployment of nerve agents during the Iran-Iraq war was part of the justification for the original Gulf War.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Yea and don't you see now why there is a problem with "arming the rebels" who don't answer to anybody? To prolong the war? Cause more strife?

    Seriously what the hell are you talking about? You're just ranting and raving now, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I support arming either side in this absurd conflict. Quite frankly the entire country can tear itself to pieces for all the difference it makes to me, I don't support any sort of intervention in the conflict. Whatever the hell you're trying to say, making me out to be an imperialist supporting arming rebels or whatever isn't making any sense.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  9. #109
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,620
    What a disturbing photo displayed above...... but, that's part of our history we have to face.

    About Agent Orange, i believe it's more that just an irresponsible tactics employed by some military generals just to meet short term tactical objectives in battlefield.

    Vietnam is one of the major rice exporter in the world, which means it plays a vital part in food security, especially for East Asians like me. Yet there are reports that Vietnam rice currently still has high risk of containing residual agent orange. The Vietnam soil has been polluted. If you would have noticed, the war of food is already under place, and had started long ago. In the pretext of clearing the forest to uncover the Charlies, those who developed and employed the chemical had a more sinister and long term plan than we commoners can perceive.

    Back to the topic, I see that the hot debate meaning we really need kinda military force like GDI in C&C: a military force above all sovereigns. And this must not be kinda small special force like Rainbow Six, but must be a full-scale military to be effective, so that it could police warring regions. I know there used to be one for CIS (an international cooperatives comprised of all former USSR states except the three Baltic states), yet: 1) it was under de facto Russian command so it was not truly impartial 2) therefore it didn't exist long for this obvious reason. If I don't recall wrong it was soon disbanded few years after 1991.
    Last edited by squirrel; 07-09-2013 at 12:33 PM.

  10. #110
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    sz
    That works fine for gassing an enclosed subway as an isolated act of terror, not delivering a payload via mortar fire into townships. Also given that the areas targeted were rebel towns, that suggests either it was the state or an agent acting on behalf of the state who undertook the attacks. Syria is known to possess chemical weapons and have previously employed them during the war. I seriously doubt the rebels would gas their own territory. Exactly what are you suggesting?


    I am suggesting simply we do not know who used the chemical weapons. There were chemical stockpiles in Libya which may have been unaccounted for. There is the possibility of US supplying chemical weapons to terrorists, which is not even so unworldly since US government has been supplying terrorist organizations with conventional weapons and dictators with chemical weapons for decades.

    And what motivation is there to gas one's own territory? To win international support by framing the enemy.

    Seriously what the hell are you talking about? You're just ranting and raving now, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I support arming either side in this absurd conflict. Quite frankly the entire country can tear itself to pieces for all the difference it makes to me, I don't support any sort of intervention in the conflict. Whatever the hell you're trying to say, making me out to be an imperialist supporting arming rebels or whatever isn't making any sense.


    I did not say you were supporting the rebel army.

    I said USA, or the US government, is supporting the rebel army. Even though they are the worst kind of jihadists and muslim extremists in the Middle East, the US government has an equal hand with Russia in prolonging this war. Both countries are supplying each side with more and more arms and just causing more killing.

    Maybe you weren't reading the news for the last 2 years, but the insane US politicians like McCain and other Republicans and other Democrats suggested that "the right thing to do" was to supply these rebels with military arms and intelligence.

    Neither US nor Russia has any sort of moral authority on Syria, not even close. That is my complaint, that people act as if US acts in the interest of other nations. That is BS.

    My implication is that people who are supporting US actions in Syria are wrong. US has equal parts with Russia in causing death and destruction in Syria.

    ---

    It never ceases to amaze me how the American politburo can agree on nothing to determine the fate of their own country, yet they feel they have enough of a moral compass to decide the fate of another sovereign nation.
    Last edited by rockman29; 07-09-2013 at 02:09 PM.

  11. #111
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    Comments from the UK via BBC:
    The politically savvy thing to do was for him to say that the 'red line' was crossed and he is taking action - by consulting with his country's population and leaders and with other countries as to what their response should be.
    if their response is to do nothing then so be it - he has taken action and the decision is to do nothing at this time, further developments may need a re-assessment.
    Our, the West's, involvement in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan has resulted in more violence, less security, the deaths of thousands of civilians, the deaths of our service personnel and massive financial cost to us (bank loans which our government will be paying off for decades and requiring the closure of hospital beds, libraries, etc in order to service that debt).
    Nothing in any of the articles answer the key question – why can’t the UN agree a resolution to enforce a ceasefire? What is each country’s position on that? Despite the vast amount of limited worth info provided, no answer is provided.
    Mindboggling! After more than 100 000 deaths, you would imagine most of them horrible, from explosions, burns, bombs, torture, hacking, what else. But that doesn't matter, does it? ... We are told now that 1429 people (ask yourself how? this very exact number!) were killed by poison gas. And we are supposed to get involved and take action only because of this last detail (sorry for the cynicism).
    I would like to send a message to the British People to congratulate them on making the right decision over military intervention. As expected since the vote in parliament we have been bombarded with insults like "its a small island and nobody cares what they say" and other comments and posturing designed to make us feel guilty and cowardly. Rise above it, you and I know we made the right choice.
    I don't understand how he can hope to persuade the people when he isn't going to show them this so called 'evidence' that the US and UK have somehow picked up before the UN have finished their mission?....
    Hopefully congress will realise what the rest of the world already knows... There is no evidence pointing to who did it, and stranger still that the weapons haven't been used again since.

    My view hasn't changed since the beginning. A government that has lied to us in living memory will not be trusted. Give us facts and evidence and you get your war. Don't tell us to trust you, because we don't.

  12. #112
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    Former Senator Richard G. Lugar said the difference lay in the danger of proliferation. “We are talking about weapons of mass destruction, we are talking about chemical weapons in particular, which may be the greatest threat to our country of any security risk that we have, much more than another government, for example, or another nation because they can be used by terrorists, by very small groups,” he told the BBC.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/wo...agewanted=2&hp

    Funny how nicely the article defines Agent Orange as a soilent, and not a chemical weapon, despite it's use a weapon intended to kill the North Vietnamese, and it also doesn't even mention the fact that the US use of chemical weapons has killed many more people than any country who has ever deployed chemical weapons ever, alone or combined.
    While militaries find chemical weapons hard to control, given the vagaries of wind and weather, they can be effective against the unprepared, and especially deadly to unsuspecting civilians. “You just have to watch the videos from Syria from Aug. 21,” Mr. Heisbourg said. “This is killing people like cockroaches and using the same chemicals to do it.”

    Thousands of people were killed by machetes in Rwanda, he noted. “That’s gruesome,” Mr. Heisbourg said, “but the production and sale of machetes is not considered a threat to international security.”
    *slow clap*

    Who cares if people are bludgeoned with bats, sliced open with machetes, exploded to bits by missiles, shot to death with hails of metal and lead, have their families raped and killed, or shredded to bits by yours truly, US military weapons sold to terrorists.

    We must convince the US population that it's no longer Al Qaeda, but chemical weapons that ANYONE can use, is now the most significant threat to the nation, despite the fact there are no signficant reports of chemical weapons proliferation or use outside of Syria...

    We must strike fear in our population that this is actually a significant threat to Americans in 50 states (when it is likely.... not at all...). That Assad or the bad muslim terrorists can launch a missile all the way to USA, despite the fact we are also saying that the terrorists are not the ones using chemical weapons.

    Riiightttt....

    The biggest threat to international security is US/CIA intervention, who fund and promote war and death in muslim countries. Iraq war may be over, but the calamity of US idealogy and promotion of war rather than peace, promotion of instability and direct funding and military aid supplying to terrorist groups, will be in Middle East for decades to come, as it has existed for decades before the Iraq War.
    Last edited by rockman29; 07-09-2013 at 04:35 PM.

  13. #113
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    There is the possibility of US supplying chemical weapons to terrorists, which is not even so unworldly since US government has been supplying terrorist organizations with conventional weapons and dictators with chemical weapons for decades.

    So the US armed terrorists to go and attack the rebels so that the US could support the rebels and go to war with the state for... what reason, again? What does the US stand to gain from doing that?

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    And what motivation is there to gas one's own territory? To win international support by framing the enemy.

    To kill rebels. The Syrian government could give a flying fig about the rebels, they'll gas the lot of them for area denial or as a lead-up to invasion if they think it'll help them win back control. From the state's perspective it isn't their territory - the towns attacked were occupied by the rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    I said USA, or the US government, is supporting the rebel army. Even though they are the worst kind of jihadists and muslim extremists in the Middle East, the US government has an equal hand with Russia in prolonging this war. Both countries are supplying each side with more and more arms and just causing more killing.

    That I agree on because the rebel cause has been subverted by religious groups with a barrel to push. But the state certainly wasn't much better. Our (newly elected) PM might've been over-simplifying when he infamously said "It's baddies vs baddies" but right now that's not too far from the truth. What started as a secular uprising has turned into a religious crusade. With that said...

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Maybe you weren't reading the news for the last 2 years, but the insane US politicians like McCain and other Republicans and other Democrats suggested that "the right thing to do" was to supply these rebels with military arms and intelligence.

    The original rebellion as it occurred during the Arab Spring was secular and opposing a state which was friggin' horrible. It's only in recent times that the rebels have been hijacked by religious groups. I can see why people would want to support the removal of the Syrian government. Unfortunately, as with a lot of things in the Middle East for some reason, religion gets its claws in and makes things far more complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    My implication is that people who are supporting US actions in Syria are wrong. US has equal parts with Russia in causing death and destruction in Syria.

    I agree. Let the country burn, it's not our problem. But that won't stop people from feeling sympathetic towards the populous. The difference is that the only thing that would help them is military force - aid workers aren't going to be admitted or will be swallowed up in the conflict unless they support the state. No leftist is going to support military intervention, and even as the forum's resident right-wing fascist I can't support military action in Syria either. It's not worth it.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  14. #114
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    and even as the forum's resident right-wing fascist I can't support military action in Syria either. It's not worth it.
    Soldant: the Loyal Opposition.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  15. #115
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    Since we were talking about the gulf war.............. Here is the stupid Gulf War Propaganda USA came up with.

    It began with the infamous "incubator babies" confession which turned out to be a complete fabrication. It of course continued with relentless US government campaigning to fight a useless war. Now let us all welcome the world to America's brand of freedom: blowing your shit up.

    A documentary by the reputable CBC program, The Fifth Estate.



    Unfortunately, as with a lot of things in the Middle East for some reason, religion gets its claws in and makes things far more complicated.
    This is the part most people don't understand. The region is so complicated with so many ridiculous muslim complications 99% of us will never understand. The Shia vs Shiite war that has been going on in the ME (Saudi Arabia loves to fund terrorism against other ME nations) is barely the tip of the iceberg.

    I don't mean they are rational or anything, but there is so much BS to deal with in these countries it's ridiculous. It is they who have chosen not to get their shit together for so long, it's not up to the US government to tell other nations when or what to do about it though.

    Forcing democracy into nations that have so little respect for human rights, woman's rights, children's rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion is asking for a lot of unnecessary pain. People who have sent their children to war in these nations realize that some of these places in the ME are simply shitholes with corrupt people with corrupt belief systems in control unfortunately. Changing all of that is not going to be done with the explosions at the end of missiles.

    So the US armed terrorists to go and attack the rebels so that the US could support the rebels and go to war with the state for... what reason, again? What does the US stand to gain from doing that?

    ...

    To kill rebels. The Syrian government could give a flying fig about the rebels, they'll gas the lot of them for area denial or as a lead-up to invasion if they think it'll help them win back control. From the state's perspective it isn't their territory - the towns attacked were occupied by the rebels.
    I am not telling you that I am certain that Syria threw the bombs, and I am not certain that the rebels through the bombs. I was

    1) objecting to the fact that rebels cannot use chemical weapons, as another member suggested, because it's not true, even the US politicians, that I love to say lie all the time, agree with this, and

    2) the UN inspection has not yet been finished and they have not come up with their report and

    3) the US claimed that Syria used the chemical weapons, claiming so expertly and specifically that 1429 people have died, and the UN hasn't even finished their investigation, so I am saying.... I'm not going to trust that just yet.
    Last edited by rockman29; 08-09-2013 at 03:45 AM.

  16. #116
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Fumarole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    It began with the infamous "incubator babies" confession which turned out to be a complete fabrication. It of course continued with relentless US government campaigning to fight a useless war.
    Something tells me you haven't asked any Kuwaitis how useless they felt it was. If ever there was an example of the right way to prosecute a war, the Gulf War was it.
    The Medallion of the Imperial Psychopath, a Napoleon: Total War AAR
    For the Emperor!, a Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai AAR

  17. #117
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    1) objecting to the fact that rebels cannot use chemical weapons, as another member suggested, because it's not true, even the US politicians, that I love to say lie all the time, agree with this, and
    It's unlikely that they have the stockpiles and effective means for an attack like this. A terrorist strike? Sure. Something on this scale? I doubt it. Plus rebels attacking rebels doesn't make much sense. EDIT The rebels are ingenious for sure, but proper weapon deployment also isn't child's play. Anybody (well, almost anybody) can mix up a bit of gas and launch it into a subway. But that's not what happened here.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    2) the UN inspection has not yet been finished and they have not come up with their report and
    Of course, but we do know that the Syrian state have used chemical agents against targets already.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    3) the US claimed that Syria used the chemical weapons, claiming so expertly and specifically that 1429 people have died, and the UN hasn't even finished their investigation, so I am saying.... I'm not going to trust that just yet.
    But again I refer you to the original point - if not the state, then who? The rebels wouldn't gas themselves, it accomplishes very little - nobody really wants to touch Syria with a 10ft pole at the moment. If you want to suggest that the US had something to do with the attack, or that there was some western conspiracy, then I'd ask you what they stand to gain from a war in Syria.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  18. #118
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    If you want to suggest that the US had something to do with the attack, or that there was some western conspiracy, then I'd ask you what they stand to gain from a war in Syria.
    They seek to gain control of the region strategically. Why else would they want to bomb the shit out of Assad? Humanitarian cause? Please...

    As I already stated, Iran and Syria are alone in the ME. The rest of the Arab League is against them, which includes Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. These countries are full of Shia muslims, while Iran and Syria are full mostly of Shiite muslims.

    Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are all allies of USA, or part of NATO (Turkey). Iran is the real target. Destabilizing the only ally of Iran (Syria) in the ME is a way of attacking the end target.

    The goal is simply control of the ME. This started with Iraq. USA genuinely believed, ever since the Gulf War, that taking out Saddam would send a wave of democracy fluently through the ME.

    The plan to invade Iraq a second time started way, way before Sept 11 ever happened. Wolfowitz pioneered a plan that basically was predicated upon the assumption that taking out Saddam would give ME all democracy and change it to USA favour. He was wrong. This is why they fabricated the weapons of mass destruction bullshit.

    This has been proven obviously to not be the case and it would never be so easy (Iraq's 1.4 million deaths attest to that, and so does it's instability and constant car bombings).

    On the rest, fair enough, I will agree to disagree. I am just unwilling to trust the US intelligence without any other supporting evidence.

    On the subject of "USA never used chemical weapons on civilians" (even in Vietnam it was on civilians, they poured Agent Orange into rivers poisoning 100,000s of people)



    Watch from 15:40

    It clearly states that USA supplied Iraq with military equipment, weapons, helicopters, billions of dollars of money.... and the chemical weapons that were allegedly "dual use helicopters and chemicals" that were used against Kurds.

    USA is not clean in the use of chemical weapons on civilians, they supplied them. Resulted in killing 5000 people. USA cannot even speak against Syria about the use of chemical weapons.

    GW Bush conveniently remembered the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the 80s, against Iran and against the Kurds killing 5000, when he wants to go to war with Iraq in 2003. He conveniently "forgets" to mention that USA gave those chemicals to Iraq
    Last edited by rockman29; 08-09-2013 at 06:08 AM.

  19. #119
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    They seek to gain control of the region strategically. Why else would they want to bomb the shit out of Assad? Humanitarian cause? Please...
    So gassing rebels, who the US supports, achieves that goal?

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman29 View Post
    Destabilizing the only ally of Iran (Syria) in the ME is a way of attacking the end target.
    The country has been torn apart by civil war. How much more destabilised can you get?
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.

  20. #120
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus rockman29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,366
    So gassing rebels, who the US supports, achieves that goal?
    Yes? It destabilizes the regime in place, the Assad regime. It wins worldwide support for military intervention. Why is US supporting the rebels? Simply to get rid of Assad. There is no alignment of ideology here... US could give no shits less about the rebels there, they know very well they are just terrorists yet are willing to give them arms and rain death upon Syria.

    How do you know the rebels even gasses themselves? Syrian rebels simply occupy every square inch of land they control with rebel human bodies lined up shoulder to shoulder? Very interesting...

    Why do you imply that the rebels are even under one flag? These are terrorist organizations for the most part acting on their own. How can it be confirmed or denied so quickly who really committed these attacks?
    The country has been torn apart by civil war. How much more destabilised can you get?
    You can't. This is what US wants to it can exert further control. Military intervention is simply the next step!

    Where has everyone been all these years? US has made it known that it was Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and then on to Syria and Iran. This is their goal in action!

    The US government modus operandi is fight fire and sticks with cruise missiles. This goes all the way back to after the Gulf War with Wolfowitz plan to "bring democracy to the ME." Which really means "bring US control to the ME."

    Destabilizing the governments in these countries, as has so successfully been done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, just means there is one less large obstacle to control... who do you think gets all the oil from Iraq now? Private companies from China and USA and EU. They don't give a shit what's happening to the people there. They just want to blow the shit out of the government so they can go to the country and steal everything they want. Eliminating Syria and Iran opposition to USA in the region is simply the next step... This is empire building courtesy the US government, nothing more.

    USA claims 1429 people died in these gas attacks. They claim there are 12 particular attacks. Why is it so inconsistent with UK's Syrian observatory report for 502 deaths? And how did either of these countries so rapidly get information without the UN even finishing their investigation?

    How are you guys so certain this is any different from WMDs in Iraq? Or the incubator babies from Kuwait?
    Last edited by rockman29; 08-09-2013 at 03:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •