Attack on Syria imminent

[ZEGH8578]

Is that right? What do you bet the us and a invades the shit out of Syria, stays a while afterwards for nation building, and when we leave there is a central Rothschild run bank and Syria is one more debt slave in the world?

I know that. Which is why I'd prefer someone else do it. How about Chile?

Retaliatory action is done all the time, Israel are awesome at it, they shoot random missiles and air-raids all the time. Something like that!

Again, I'm not talking about invading to aid any of the sides. That will only go one way

[RageBeoulve]

Is that right? What do you bet the us and a invades the shit out of Syria, stays a while afterwards for nation building, and when we leave there is a central Rothschild run bank and Syria is one more debt slave in the world?

I know that. Which is why I'd prefer someone else do it. How about Chile?

Retaliatory action is done all the time, Israel are awesome at it, they shoot random missiles and air-raids all the time. Something like that!

Again, I'm not talking about invading to aid any of the sides. That will only go one way

Anyone but us. And England.

[ZEGH8578]

Is that right? What do you bet the us and a invades the shit out of Syria, stays a while afterwards for nation building, and when we leave there is a central Rothschild run bank and Syria is one more debt slave in the world?

I know that. Which is why I'd prefer someone else do it. How about Chile?

Retaliatory action is done all the time, Israel are awesome at it, they shoot random missiles and air-raids all the time. Something like that!

Again, I'm not talking about invading to aid any of the sides. That will only go one way

Anyone but us. And England.

Exactly, think of it this way - Imagine those who are trying to use chemical attack as an excuse to do an invasion, knowing where it will go, as you suggest. If fuckin Cambodia or something came out of the blue, did some air raids, went "There. That should teach them." and flew home again.
It would look very weird, and NATO would be scratching their heads about what excuse to try for next

I realize fully well how nasty all this is - but certain one of the geneva conventions should come well above these... "shady" deals... you surely must agree with that part at least. The details that follow, well, people are always known for complicating matters :/

Also, get me right! I was one nagging about military intervention for Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burma, before others gave a fuck, systematically even, I'd be all "Guys, forget about Iraq. Sierra Leone, they are actually WAVING their hands - INVADE US!!!"
people all "shhh im trying to watch the war"
then, when it fits them, theyre all "KONY 2013!!!"
You know the deal...

I just want to see, for once... once... the international community use force where warranted.

[RageBeoulve]

Is that right? What do you bet the us and a invades the shit out of Syria, stays a while afterwards for nation building, and when we leave there is a central Rothschild run bank and Syria is one more debt slave in the world?

I know that. Which is why I'd prefer someone else do it. How about Chile?

Retaliatory action is done all the time, Israel are awesome at it, they shoot random missiles and air-raids all the time. Something like that!

Again, I'm not talking about invading to aid any of the sides. That will only go one way

Anyone but us. And England.

Exactly, think of it this way - Imagine those who are trying to use chemical attack as an excuse to do an invasion, knowing where it will go, as you suggest. If fuckin Cambodia or something came out of the blue, did some air raids, went "There. That should teach them." and flew home again.
It would look very weird, and NATO would be scratching their heads about what excuse to try for next

I realize fully well how nasty all this is - but certain one of the geneva conventions should come well above these... "shady" deals... you surely must agree with that part at least. The details that follow, well, people are always known for complicating matters :/

You are a fucking genius, Zegh.

[DirtDawg]

The US sent food to Sweden during the 1867 famine here. That might be one of the last times the US actually helped someone without a thought on profit.

The US sent "help" to Texas in 1846, because the Mexican constitution prohibited slavery.

The US provoked the CSA to attack in 1863 to force the southern states back in the union.

The US "liberated" the Philippines in 1898.

The US sent "democracy" to Mexico 1913.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe 1917-19.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe again 1941-45, although they didn't have much against the nazis as long as Hitler stayed on the European mainland and his allies the Japanese hadn't yet attacked Pearl harbor.

The US sent "democracy" to Korea and Vietnam in the 1950's and -60's.

The US sent "democracy" to Iran and Nicaragua in the 1980's.

The US sent "democracy" to Iraq in 1992. It just happened to be that Quwait was full of oil.

The US sent "democracy" to Bosnia etc, but only after it stood clear that the Russians supported the Serbs.

The US sent "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 and onwards.

The US sent "democracy" to Libya last year and this year.

Yet people are still being fooled 

What a lazy list. First, the American Civil War started in 1861. Second, you forget all US intervention in Central America. Third, you seem to hold double standards that criticize the US both ways. In your example of WWII, do you hold the US at fault for getting involved or for not getting involved? We didn't launch an all-out attack until after Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, but we had been sending the Allies supplies for a while beforehand.

Also, you've only listed armed conflicts. Where are the humanitarian missions and the foreign aid?

The fact that our country is suffering these days from having sent hundreds of billions of dollars worth of aid for fifty or more years running to needy countries, all over the globe, is often dismissed.

Hey, in Tig's own words: 

We Are Brave!!

 

[bodie]

DUDE. Its none of our business! Did they use chemical weapons on us? Nope. Did they ask our divine messiah for help, or even his gay opinion? NOPE! Did WE fucking ask him? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SHUT THE FUCK UP, OBAMA!

IMPEACHIMPEACHIMPEACH

I'm not talking about Obama. Anybody should be obliged to react on the use of chemical warfare. Put USA aside, what about Italy? Turkey. India? Anybody.

No. Unless the chemical weapons are used against any of those countries BY Syria, or they ask any of them for help, then those countries are obligated to mind their own fucking business.

We forget we already have a procedure for this event.  It is called the International Criminal Court.  The UN security council could present a case and the perpetrators be arrested under International Law and tried for their crimes in Court in The Netherlands.

The biggest problem is the UN Security Council needs all members to agree.  Russia will not agree.  Have we dismissed this too quickly.  The USA has 'evidence' and this should be presented to all members inc Russia and China.  If the evidence is compelling enough but Russia still won't agree the CHANGE THE FUCKING RULES!  A majority would do.

You can't do that?  I think so.  You would have a UN Security Council that is actually able to DO something?  At the moment it is a joke.

The UN was established for peace.  Making it actually usable would justify having it.

How many more innocent people will get killed in the so called military action?

Part of me wants to forget about these people.  They are not my people.  I just can't do it.  Whatever moral fibre i have, it tells me NOT TO FORGET.

If I saw a bully,  in the street,  or for example a few guys beating shit out of one guy I would not just walk on by.  I would do something  probably end up in hospital or arrested but I know I would do something.  Even if that something was to call the police, or flag down others for help.   Well that is what the Syrian Government are - big bullies.   

We live in a world full of  laws and legislation, mostly bullshit.  I hate many of them.  This is actually something I could justify using law.

Bombing the fuck out of Syria now will likely hurt more civilians.  I am sure I heard on the news that the Syrian Government are moving certain types of it citizens around (prisoners i believe) so they will be human targets.

The UN should do what it is supposed to.  If force is needed to remove the perpetrators then that force should fall on International shoulders, and be proportionate among members.

Something needs doing.  The 'do nothing' option is still a choice, and one we have to live with.

[RageBeoulve]

Theres still one thing missing, darlin. Them asking for help. This aside, I really like something you said. A lot.

The UN was established for peace.  Making it actually usable would justify having it

[bodie]

I genuinely think the Syrian people,  the ones still there,  are too afraid.   The millions of refugee's are beginning to talk.  I spent about an hour earlier watching stuff on you tube posted by the refugees. 

I will post links,  but not now as i am sickened by their stories and I don't want to go there again today.  I need to go and watch some Blackadder.     Not joking.   

[RageBeoulve]

By all means, share your research. I'd like to see. I'm just still stinging from Egypt. Help me see things the way you do.

[Calavera]

Many Syrians hated, and still, hate Bashar's guts. I personally know many Syrians who do and have cursed both Bashar and his father way before the civil war today. Only the Syrians who are loyal to the Assad regime truly side with him. There are those right now on the fence, so to speak, because as Bodie said, are too afraid AND confused to speak out against Bashar. They don't know who to oppose anymore, but I'm sure they still don't like Bashar and won't forget all the damages and crimes he's caused them.

Somehow, this whole thing reminds me of the Iraqi situation as it was in the days under Saddam. For decades, Iraqi civilians had been begging the US to help them out and provide them safety and security from Saddam but kept being ignored. I remember a documentary I watched more than 10 years ago of one Iraqi woman being interviewed who was crying out to the US and pleading for them to help her and her family and fellow Iraqis from the persecutions of Saddam. She said: "Why do you keep neglecting us? Aren't we humans also?"

And, indeed, that is an important question to consider any time you try to impede a powerful nation or organization from helping innocent people in need of their assistance.

[ZEGH8578]

A grave danger of asking for help, and showing your clear cut opposition to your own government, is that no "overturn" is guaranteed. People are watched, and the Syrian government did find individual people and torture them to death in the beginning of the conflict, probably still do.

To a Syrian civilian, there is no certainty, what if Bashar wins? What if it ends up like in Burma? We saw it happen, it is a possibility, everyone who had the guts to speak out will be rounded up alphabetically, and "disappeared".

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Related to the topic of the pending war on Syria:



TL;DW: All these wars/strikes on nations were planned purely for geopolitical reasons (oh, and oil too).

[TheoK]

A grave danger of asking for help, and showing your clear cut opposition to your own government, is that no "overturn" is guaranteed. People are watched, and the Syrian government did find individual people and torture them to death in the beginning of the conflict, probably still do.

To a Syrian civilian, there is no certainty, what if Bashar wins? What if it ends up like in Burma? We saw it happen, it is a possibility, everyone who had the guts to speak out will be rounded up alphabetically, and "disappeared".

And still people don't think that gun ownership is a right...

[ZEGH8578]

A grave danger of asking for help, and showing your clear cut opposition to your own government, is that no "overturn" is guaranteed. People are watched, and the Syrian government did find individual people and torture them to death in the beginning of the conflict, probably still do.

To a Syrian civilian, there is no certainty, what if Bashar wins? What if it ends up like in Burma? We saw it happen, it is a possibility, everyone who had the guts to speak out will be rounded up alphabetically, and "disappeared".

And still people don't think that gun ownership is a right...

My main problem with handguns are that random violence tends to be much more lethal.
Like with my friend just now, who got kicked in the face by a random douchebag.
Granted, this person could be armed with a knife, but then again, most combat knives are also banned in Norway, leaving machetes and saws and whatnot, which aren't very practical to lug around

I like guns. I want guns. I've often seen situations where guns in civilian hands could have saved the day (utøya ffs), but one preventable disaster doesn't quite make up for all the potential disasters that come from it (shooting people for short-cutting across your lawn, suicide made easy, kids playing with it, drunk fucks shooting people for fun)

What would I do, if I packed a 9mm Glock, to defend myself, and some douchebag decided to shoot me in the face for fun, because he too is allowed to carry a gun around. Wake up from the dead and defend myself? There are many illusions in this matter, and a country like Norway is indeed left with very few practical lethal weapons for people to carry around (spears? bricks? comemorative swords? hunting rifles? )

[TheoK]

I don't like pragmaticism (I hate it). Gun ownership is a right.

But I can give you one pragmatic reason nevertheless: a madman can kill a few dozens. The state can kill thousands and millions. And it has been proven again and again that it does.