Probably to do with something valuable again, like oil.
Does Syria have a central, Rothschild run bank yet?
if you are correct then yes, attack is eminent.Does Syria have a central, Rothschild run bank yet?
Not yet, but they will have when they have gotten "democracy".
Does Syria have a central, Rothschild run bank yet?
Both sides possess chemical weapons do they even know that Assad's side did it and not one of the rebel groups?
I realized this as well. None of the world is safe from "democracy".
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_RrrpB3-p1iwfyP9kBmO6Qwzqw190YUcTIU6M6rJLJuXJ3pk-5Q)
So er.. when are we going to STOP THIS BULLSHIT? I MEAN CMON THERES LIKE BILLIONS OF US COMPARED TO THE ONES RESPONSIBLE. IF WE JUST WORK TOGETHER THEY WOULDN'T STAND A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL, BUT HERE WE ARE BITCHING ABOUT IT LIKE A BUNCH OF OLD NANNIES WHILE WATCHING IT HAPPEN.
You fucking faggots. I'll kick ALL your asses.
Fucking Muslims. let them kill each other until none of them are left, :wanker:we know exactly what were doing. And the real terrorist is America. We vote blindly and elect evil, corrupt people.
Why should we care if they are fighting each other? lets give them more reason to want to fight us for invading the Islam world can we?
WILL WE EVER LEARN?!
I doubt it. :thumbdn:
Turrism must b stoped guiz da govimint is lyin 420 everday
US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report (http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html)
:grrr:
If Obama goes to war with Syria or any of that my opinions will change of him. :prude:
Well. there is a theory flying around that I have seen, that wartime boosts the economy. I don't know if it is true, but Obama better leave those muslims alone. We are not the worlds police! If they are killing each other left and right then who. fucking. cares!
:facepalm2:
Just the other day I saw a headline coming from Iraq. place is STILL a mess over there. While I don't agree with nation building, or Tyrants
people should be left alone to run their own country the way they see fit. Imagine the fit America would have if Austraila came over here and told us how to live. :orly:
Is the USA's Economy in really that bad of shape? I don't have TV or Cable so I cant watch The Kudlow Report anymore. :(
However, I will Accept your answer. It is Distracting, the end game in all of this is the total collapse of every country on earth because, All of our economies are too intermingled.
I don't agree with any kind of war too be truthfully honest. unless, some other country invades yours and kills innocent people.
Much like we have been doing it seems, Actually. I don't think Anybody here, or Abroad respects America like they once did
All these dumb presidents, (And lets face it) It doesn't matter who you elect into Office.
They ALL follow the same procedure of stupidity it seems like. :P
I don't think the American people will put up with yet another war. Obama has to know he would lose bigtime on this issue if he knew what was wise. ::)
Fucking Muslims. let them kill each other until none of them are left, :wanker:
Why should we care if they are fighting each other? lets give them more reason to want to fight us for invading the Islam world can we?
WILL WE EVER LEARN?!
I doubt it. :thumbdn:
Once again it's an "Obama" problem, not a "America" problem, even though every past president had their finger in the world pie. ::)
Don't pretend this world policing thing is new. America should fuck off from the world and keep to themselves, like they should have after WWII.
I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible. They seem to be the ones who will gain. No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.
When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.
Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward?
Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack. I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.
How many countries did Rome conquer? :orly:
But I get it. It is what countries seem to want to do, enveloupe everyone into the fold. however, democracy is just another form of slavery.
but is there a perfect answer? yes there is. the Russian Yesus! :toporly:
I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible. They seem to be the ones who will gain. No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.
When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.
Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward?
Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack. I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.
Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.
I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible. They seem to be the ones who will gain. No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.
When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.
Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward?
Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack. I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.
Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.
Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.
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 :facepalm2:
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 :facepalm2:
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?
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?
I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible. They seem to be the ones who will gain. No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.
When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.
Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward?
Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack. I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.
Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.
Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y)
I don't think the US should stay out of things just becuase it's "none of their business"
that's not to say they SHOULD intervene, but we can't say the rest of the world should never do anything whenever something's going to shit in another country just because we need to mind our own business
It should be about what would cause the least damage and suffering to civilians. If military intervention by a US/UK etc coalition would make things worse for the people of Syria, then stay the fuck out. And that has tp be thought of in the long term as well as tthe short term.
But not just becuase we need to mind our own business. Imo something DOES need to be done. But I'm not convinced a US/UK missile strike is that "something"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y)
If I'm not mistaken, she looks Christian to me. That may explain the bias for Bashar, but she's still not a credible source to go to.
What a lazy list. First, the American Civil War started in 1861.
Yes, Lincoln was a criminal provoking the war against the CSA.QuoteSecond, you forget all US intervention in Central America.
I know I didn't get it all. I posted the most important examples.QuoteThird, 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.
The US sent help to the UK, because Churchill urged the US to do so. I hold the US for getting involved just for the sake of its own interests.QuoteAlso, you've only listed armed conflicts. Where are the humanitarian missions and the foreign aid?
Mention some of those that weren't linked to the armed conflicts.
Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.
because we were attacked by Japan
had war declared on us by Germany
I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible. They seem to be the ones who will gain. No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.
When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.
Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward?
Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack. I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.
Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.
Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.
If it's not their business, then whose business should it be? The Islamicists and the Russians?
The US sent "democracy" to Europe 1917-19.No. The Greeks were the first civilisation to utilise democracy.
QuoteIncidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.Quotebecause we were attacked by JapanQuotehad war declared on us by Germany
Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.
QuoteIncidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.Quotebecause we were attacked by JapanQuotehad war declared on us by Germany
Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.
What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.
Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.
Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.
QuoteIncidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.Quotebecause we were attacked by JapanQuotehad war declared on us by Germany
Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.
What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.
Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.
Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.
Oh I misread then. I thought you were defending military intervention. My bad.
QuoteIncidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.Quotebecause we were attacked by JapanQuotehad war declared on us by Germany
Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.
What case? My "case" is that Lit is wrong and that American foreign intervention is sometimes good.
Not "military intervention". Foreign intervention. As in foreign aid, humanitarian missions, disaster relief, etc. Things that Lit left out.
Other than that, I've just corrected a few mistakes that I see with Lit's interpretation of American history.
Oh I misread then. I thought you were defending military intervention. My bad.
:)
Not everything that the US has done overseas has been evil or imperialist.
In the other direction, I pointed out a few examples of American imperialism that Lit had missed.
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#2000s) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development) are two links explaining US foreign aid. Yes, military aid is included in these figures. If you want it straight from the US government, click here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/183755.pdf). If you don't feel like reading all of it, skip to page 74.
How do you hold Lincoln to be a criminal for the American Civil War?
Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany. All nations act according to their interests.
I notice that you vilify absolutely everything that the US has done over the past century or so without making any room for the good that has been done. You also don't seem to hold other nations to these standards. The US government may be a tyrannical, Constitution-breaking den of thieves, but it's not as black and white as you claim.
Nothing wrong with giving aid. Just military action from a country that has no business to step in at all. It should be the business of neighbouring countries in threat, or the UN's peacekeeping forces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y)
If I'm not mistaken, she looks Christian to me. That may explain the bias for Bashar, but she's still not a credible source to go to.
Because of her (possible) religion?
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#2000s) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development) are two links explaining US foreign aid. Yes, military aid is included in these figures. If you want it straight from the US government, click here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/183755.pdf). If you don't feel like reading all of it, skip to page 74.
OK, the US sometimes helps people without getting direct benefits out of it but not most of the time.QuoteHow do you hold Lincoln to be a criminal for the American Civil War?
The southern states must have had a right to leave the United States, just like the United States had a right to be independent of Britain. But Lincoln provoked the war to force them back into the union.
Later guys, like Wilson, didn't even pretend to care about what the constitution said.QuoteIncidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany. All nations act according to their interests.
But the US wouldn't have cared if Adolf had just enslaved continental Europe and there had been no Japanese attack and no German declaration of war.QuoteI notice that you vilify absolutely everything that the US has done over the past century or so without making any room for the good that has been done. You also don't seem to hold other nations to these standards. The US government may be a tyrannical, Constitution-breaking den of thieves, but it's not as black and white as you claim.
As an anarchist I don't think that any state is even legitimate, but the US has mostly done things out of its own interest, yes. This thing with giving other countries "democracy" has been used for 100 years now.
I really hate this fucking planet.
I really hate this fucking planet.
Don't worry, it'll be bathed in nuclear fire soon enough. :zoinks:
I can see the equivalency of the Civil War and the American Revolution, but you leave out a few details. Regardless of sovereignty, no person has the right to keep slaves. Perhaps Lincoln acted unethically (and we could argue about this for a while), but I don't see how he broke the law there. He certainly bent the law at other times in his presidency.
The US populace may not have cared if Hitler had enslaved Europe, but the leadership was sending aid to the Allies before we formally entered into the war. That's backwards from the usual setup nowadays.
You focus so much of your attention on the US without paying any attention to other countries. Do you claim that the USSR was acting altruistically by instituting the Warsaw Pact? What about the Japanese imperialism that helped lead to WWII? Nazi Germany's annexation of most of Europe?
Not modern enough for you? How about the British occupation of Gibraltar and Cyprus? How about China's control of Taiwan and Tibet? I hear a lot of talk about American oppression from you but little about other countries'. All nations act according to their interests.
I can see the equivalency of the Civil War and the American Revolution, but you leave out a few details. Regardless of sovereignty, no person has the right to keep slaves. Perhaps Lincoln acted unethically (and we could argue about this for a while), but I don't see how he broke the law there. He certainly bent the law at other times in his presidency.
The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about forcing the southern states to rejoin the union. If they had left for other reasons they would most probably still have been forced back.
QuoteThe US populace may not have cared if Hitler had enslaved Europe, but the leadership was sending aid to the Allies before we formally entered into the war. That's backwards from the usual setup nowadays.
One little detail is that the UK gave the US copies of all important inventions that they had, especially for military purposes, like the radar.
QuoteYou focus so much of your attention on the US without paying any attention to other countries. Do you claim that the USSR was acting altruistically by instituting the Warsaw Pact? What about the Japanese imperialism that helped lead to WWII? Nazi Germany's annexation of most of Europe?
Some of the Nazis might ironically have thought that what they did they did for a good cause. The same is probably true for some Soviet leaders. The US interventions have never been about anything else than money.
QuoteNot modern enough for you? How about the British occupation of Gibraltar and Cyprus? How about China's control of Taiwan and Tibet? I hear a lot of talk about American oppression from you but little about other countries'. All nations act according to their interests.
Sure, but America is the only Western country that does it with the blatant lie that it is for freedom and democracy.
You have grossly oversimplified the matter. You've completely left out the issues of nullification, "perpetual union", and states' rights. Also, you haven't explained what law Lincoln broke.
It's easy for you to sit there and declare that the North was wrong. Where do you stand on the slavery part of it? The South wanted to secede, therefore they should have been allowed to do so. I can understand your position on that. But, if the South had seceded peacefully, the North would be justified in invading to free the slaves. Consider this in a modern context: if a modern-day country was publicly keeping four million people in captivity as forced labor, wouldn't the US be justified in doing something about it?
And if we had allied with Germany we could have completed their heavy water experiments with them. We shared things with the the Allies, such as aircraft, tanks and food. That's what allies do.
Yet I still don't see you using the Nazis as an example of the evils of imperialism. Do you have any evidence that the US has never intervened militarily for altruistic reasons?
The US concern with money must be why we overcharged the Allies for all of the military supplies we sent them during WWII. :thumbup:
Wait... Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)
I see that you qualify that with "Western country". What about the Communist interventions during the Cold War? The "People's Republic of China" has something to say about that as they spread the "workers' revolution" to Taiwan.
We can argue this all day, Lit. The fact remains that you paint all US military action with the broad brush of an evil overlord, and you don't back up your assertions with fact or logic. I don't appreciate it. You certainly don't have to tell me about the bad things that the US government is doing; I live here. However, your dislike of current US foreign policy doesn't justify you portraying all of US history as being a string of illegitimate military actions. Yes, there are a fair number of them in our past and present (more than our fair share), but you portray the entire history of the US as being lies. Why not back yourself up, or go talk about China?
Six RAF Typhoon's have been deployed to Cyprus in a defensive posture.
Also the Syrian Gov have sent this letter to all UK MP's
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/4b9d7799-513e-4391-bab1-66edfe6a4372.jpg~original) (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/missteresabrown/media/4b9d7799-513e-4391-bab1-66edfe6a4372.jpg.html)
You have grossly oversimplified the matter. You've completely left out the issues of nullification, "perpetual union", and states' rights. Also, you haven't explained what law Lincoln broke.
It's easy for you to sit there and declare that the North was wrong. Where do you stand on the slavery part of it? The South wanted to secede, therefore they should have been allowed to do so. I can understand your position on that. But, if the South had seceded peacefully, the North would be justified in invading to free the slaves. Consider this in a modern context: if a modern-day country was publicly keeping four million people in captivity as forced labor, wouldn't the US be justified in doing something about it?
I'm against slavery, but that has nothing to do with the matter, since slavery wasn't the reason for the war. The reason was that some states left the USA and weren't allowed to so do by the US government. It is of course illegal to provoke a war against another nation.
QuoteAnd if we had allied with Germany we could have completed their heavy water experiments with them. We shared things with the the Allies, such as aircraft, tanks and food. That's what allies do.
The thing is that the US always does what benefits the US. If it doesn't benefit the US the US doesn't do it.
Quote
Yet I still don't see you using the Nazis as an example of the evils of imperialism. Do you have any evidence that the US has never intervened militarily for altruistic reasons?
We are not talking about the Nazis. The Nazis never claimed to be democrats either.
Give me one example of US intervention for altruistic reasons then.
QuoteThe US concern with money must be why we overcharged the Allies for all of the military supplies we sent them during WWII. :thumbup:
Wait... Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)
:facepalm2:
That proves my point, not yours. Lend-Lease was to defeat the Axis...for the reason of US power worldwide.
Quote
I see that you qualify that with "Western country". What about the Communist interventions during the Cold War? The "People's Republic of China" has something to say about that as they spread the "workers' revolution" to Taiwan.
But that's not the topic here. We are talking about the United States of America invading other countries since 150 years back for false reasons.QuoteWe can argue this all day, Lit. The fact remains that you paint all US military action with the broad brush of an evil overlord, and you don't back up your assertions with fact or logic. I don't appreciate it. You certainly don't have to tell me about the bad things that the US government is doing; I live here. However, your dislike of current US foreign policy doesn't justify you portraying all of US history as being a string of illegitimate military actions. Yes, there are a fair number of them in our past and present (more than our fair share), but you portray the entire history of the US as being lies. Why not back yourself up, or go talk about China?
Most things the US ever did were lies, yes. Unfortunately. The US being the US it wants the world to believe that it is would have been the best country on Earth.
China isn't about to attack Syria for the sake of "democracy".
Does Syria have a central, Rothschild run bank yet?
Six RAF Typhoon's have been deployed to Cyprus in a defensive posture.
Also the Syrian Gov have sent this letter to all UK MP's
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/4b9d7799-513e-4391-bab1-66edfe6a4372.jpg~original) (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/missteresabrown/media/4b9d7799-513e-4391-bab1-66edfe6a4372.jpg.html)
Oh yeah, the Syrian Gov is now speaking on behalf of the fathers and mothers whom they have no problem slaughtering whenever they don't do things their way.
From what I've noticed, you can sometimes tell if one is innocent/guilty just by how they respond to the accusations against them. An innocent person will tend to go out of his way to defend himself and clarify the truth of what went on or of what he knows exactly. The guilty, instead, either plays victim or goes on the offensive without even attempting to clarify things in defense of themselves.
The US helped Japan. Isn't Japan an important business partner and has a strategic position?
Six RAF Typhoon's have been deployed to Cyprus in a defensive posture.
Also the Syrian Gov have sent this letter to all UK MP's
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/4b9d7799-513e-4391-bab1-66edfe6a4372.jpg~original) (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/missteresabrown/media/4b9d7799-513e-4391-bab1-66edfe6a4372.jpg.html)
Oh yeah, the Syrian Gov is now speaking on behalf of the fathers and mothers whom they have no problem slaughtering whenever they don't do things their way.
From what I've noticed, you can sometimes tell if one is innocent/guilty just by how they respond to the accusations against them. An innocent person will tend to go out of his way to defend himself and clarify the truth of what went on or of what he knows exactly. The guilty, instead, either plays victim or goes on the offensive without even attempting to clarify things in defense of themselves.
Well, our parliament decided today to take another vote after the report from UN. Our PM was hoping to get enough support to issue a blank cheque for military action, but he failed. The reason ? Iraq.
Iraq weighs heavy. It was a balls up. We (the public) were misled.
The Syrian government know this, as is the reference in the letter. I believe that letter was written by a Brit for them, it is too 'British' :orly:
TBH I don't think the cost (although relevant) is really going to stop our involvement. We are learning more and more how our Iraq intervention caused death and suffering to innocent people. There is also debate over the type of intervention and how dangerous bombing a place with chemical warfare could be?
I hate it, Calavera, not knowing the full facts. I hated seeing those images on TV with the children screaming! I am sure most people here want to help the people of Syria. It has become a 'hot potato' due to Iraq. We are told by the PM that the chemical attack was highly likely to be by the Syrian regime, but there is no unequivocal 100% guarantee. We are not privy to all the information, though.
The US helped Japan. Isn't Japan an important business partner and has a strategic position?
You run into that problem with any act of altruism anyone does. Even if it doesn't directly benefit the altruist, doesn't it benefit him/her by making the altruist feel good?
Unfortunately, I have no way around that rhetorical speed bump.
Here (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-17/world/35451972_1_pakistani-soldiers-india-pakistan-successive-pakistani-governments) is an article describing US aid to Pakistan, and the effect on US-Pakistani relations.
The US helped Japan. Isn't Japan an important business partner and has a strategic position?
You run into that problem with any act of altruism anyone does. Even if it doesn't directly benefit the altruist, doesn't it benefit him/her by making the altruist feel good?
Unfortunately, I have no way around that rhetorical speed bump.
Here (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-17/world/35451972_1_pakistani-soldiers-india-pakistan-successive-pakistani-governments) is an article describing US aid to Pakistan, and the effect on US-Pakistani relations.
Pakistan also has a strategic position.
Has the US ever helped a really poor African country without a strategic position and without valuable resources?
The US helped Japan. Isn't Japan an important business partner and has a strategic position?
You run into that problem with any act of altruism anyone does. Even if it doesn't directly benefit the altruist, doesn't it benefit him/her by making the altruist feel good?
Unfortunately, I have no way around that rhetorical speed bump.
Here (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-17/world/35451972_1_pakistani-soldiers-india-pakistan-successive-pakistani-governments) is an article describing US aid to Pakistan, and the effect on US-Pakistani relations.
Pakistan also has a strategic position.
Has the US ever helped a really poor African country without a strategic position and without valuable resources?
Ethiopia
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543909_10153219372315078_215174143_n.png)
British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".
The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".
The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
Yes, it was looking all day like another vote would be inevitable, but Cameron has accepted defeat. Will America still strike without their egor - ally?
The US helped Japan. Isn't Japan an important business partner and has a strategic position?
You run into that problem with any act of altruism anyone does. Even if it doesn't directly benefit the altruist, doesn't it benefit him/her by making the altruist feel good?
Unfortunately, I have no way around that rhetorical speed bump.
Here (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-17/world/35451972_1_pakistani-soldiers-india-pakistan-successive-pakistani-governments) is an article describing US aid to Pakistan, and the effect on US-Pakistani relations.
Pakistan also has a strategic position.
Has the US ever helped a really poor African country without a strategic position and without valuable resources?
USAID assistance to 49 African countries totaled $6.4 billion in 2011, including $1.6 billion in humanitarian assistance and food aid.
Semi, hows come your current IP address is that of a known comment spammerThe address you are on now is that of a known Spam Harvester and Comment
Thats what you get for using proxies, especially Tor
Never know what you get
interesting
Sweden has a population smaller than 3% of the US population. Yet Sweden gives 4.5 billions in humanitarian aid: Source (http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/sweden)
So I'm not impressed at all.
Sweden has a population smaller than 3% of the US population. Yet Sweden gives 4.5 billions in humanitarian aid: Source (http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/sweden)
So I'm not impressed at all.
But that's not the topic here. We are talking about the United States of America invading other countries since 150 years back for false reasons.
Semi, hows come your current IP address is that of a known comment spammerThe address you are on now is that of a known Spam Harvester and Comment
Thats what you get for using proxies, especially Tor
Never know what you get
interesting
Spammer out of Amsterdam
And yet anotherSemi, hows come your current IP address is that of a known comment spammerThe address you are on now is that of a known Spam Harvester and Comment
Thats what you get for using proxies, especially Tor
Never know what you get
interesting
Spammer out of Amsterdam
And yet anotherSemi, hows come your current IP address is that of a known comment spammerThe address you are on now is that of a known Spam Harvester and Comment
Thats what you get for using proxies, especially Tor
Never know what you get
interesting
Spammer out of Amsterdam
Comment spammer again
Proxy generator?
The person stalking the Nelsons was using a proxy generator
was hoping for a reply from semi
guess I wont get one
Was under the impression
that folks that used proxies
were frowned upon here
must be mistaken
Like I've said
Mysterious guy
But as per your wishes
skyblue is stopping
Thought you use a proxy.
Thought you use a proxy.I pay for one yearly
Why would you need a proxy in the first place? unless your viewing questionable stuff, or want to remain anonymous online
I don't really see the need to have one, and you paid for a entire years worth of one?
well. I can see your middle name is sugar daddy and why aspie momma likes you
good grief. haha
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NB2lAI4RIvw/TFXEkzxKk_I/AAAAAAAABAg/eizsheAIz1k/s320/VanImpe_200w.jpg)
Well? its the truth. the fact of the matter is you do not need a proxy, unless.. I won't dare say it, but I think we can all use our imaginations. :zoinks:
And it isn't shocking about AM courting the prune. he's got money, no big deal. sheesh
I'm well versed in pussy and how it acts. I can't get any because I am poor, :nerdy:
Cheers to Skyblue though. :autism:
You can be a real prick when you want to be... you know that?you chose to let it bother you. not my problem, Skyblue1 has been a prick to me in the past for no reason so I occasionally like to give it back to him
Why would you need a proxy in the first place? unless your viewing questionable stuff, or want to remain anonymous online
I don't really see the need to have one, and you paid for a entire years worth of one?
well. I can see your middle name is sugar daddy and why aspie momma likes you
good grief. haha
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NB2lAI4RIvw/TFXEkzxKk_I/AAAAAAAABAg/eizsheAIz1k/s320/VanImpe_200w.jpg)
:finger:
Sweden has a population smaller than 3% of the US population. Yet Sweden gives 4.5 billions in humanitarian aid: Source (http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/sweden)
So I'm not impressed at all.
I don't care if you're impressed. I care that I've met your points and you haven't met mine. Besides:But that's not the topic here. We are talking about the United States of America invading other countries since 150 years back for false reasons.
I don't recall posting that the US is the most humanitarian country in the world, nor that we are complete altruists. You've asked me to back myself up regarding US foreign aid and I have. Now back yourself up.
Why would you need a proxy in the first place? unless your viewing questionable stuff, or want to remain anonymous online
I don't really see the need to have one, and you paid for a entire years worth of one?
well. I can see your middle name is sugar daddy and why aspie momma likes you
good grief. haha
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NB2lAI4RIvw/TFXEkzxKk_I/AAAAAAAABAg/eizsheAIz1k/s320/VanImpe_200w.jpg)
:finger:
A fine example of your maturity. :hahaha:
Why would you need a proxy in the first place? unless your viewing questionable stuff, or want to remain anonymous online
I don't really see the need to have one, and you paid for a entire years worth of one?
well. I can see your middle name is sugar daddy and why aspie momma likes you
good grief. haha
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NB2lAI4RIvw/TFXEkzxKk_I/AAAAAAAABAg/eizsheAIz1k/s320/VanImpe_200w.jpg)
:finger:
A fine example of your maturity. :hahaha:
I don't understand why you're picking on Genesis as he sounds like the last guy someone like you should pick on (unless you're all of a sudden like MLA whom you used to take issue with for a similar thing).
If it's about what happened in the old AFF past, then you need to get over it because he's apologized for his mistakes so many times by now that I'm getting tired of reading his apologies, and it's just trollish of you to keep giving him a hard time for that.
was hoping for a reply from semi
guess I wont get one
Was under the impression
that folks that used proxies
were frowned upon here
must be mistaken
Like I've said
Mysterious guy
But as per your wishes
skyblue is stopping
Sweden has a population smaller than 3% of the US population. Yet Sweden gives 4.5 billions in humanitarian aid: Source (http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/sweden)
So I'm not impressed at all.
I don't care if you're impressed. I care that I've met your points and you haven't met mine. Besides:But that's not the topic here. We are talking about the United States of America invading other countries since 150 years back for false reasons.
I don't recall posting that the US is the most humanitarian country in the world, nor that we are complete altruists. You've asked me to back myself up regarding US foreign aid and I have. Now back yourself up.
But you benefit from this too. You can claim that you do things without benefitting from it yet you benefit from the fact that some people think that you don't benefit.
Here is what you spend on the military: Military Budget of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)
You spend 425 times more on your military than on helping poor countries.
In comparison Sweden doesn't spend much more on the military budget than 6.4 billions, about 1.5 times more than on humanitarian aid for other countries.
was hoping for a reply from semi
guess I wont get one
Was under the impression
that folks that used proxies
were frowned upon here
must be mistaken
Like I've said
Mysterious guy
But as per your wishes
skyblue is stopping
Proxies are not really frowned upon here it's just that the spam filters reject a lot of them and will not let you registrar. There are some that do work and we have approved members using them as long as the IP wasn't blacklisted. There are many reasons to use one like avoiding ip baised search results,viewing country restricted material say on Youtube, ,using TOR to bypass internet filters, and of course there is always not trusting the site you are visiting with your IP info which I would say is the case with Semi. I have and do use proxies for all these reasons.
You can be a real prick when you want to be... you know that?
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but get butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but get butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
I never said I wasn't immature. What I am is fair and honest to the point of being rigid about it. My assburgers exacerbates that. My profile makes fun of my butthurt and immaturity. I don't deny what is true.
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but get butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
I never said I wasn't immature. What I am is fair and honest to the point of being rigid about it. My assburgers exacerbates that. My profile makes fun of my butthurt and immaturity. I don't deny what is true.
As am I! For the record, my post was generic and not aimed at anyone in particular, although I did use the term butthurt! :P
British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".
The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but getting butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but getting butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
He apologized? Where? I clearly didn't see it. I didn't see one directed at me.
This is nothing like MLA, honey. Genesis never did squat to MLA. He accused me of immaturity while being immature himself. Lies and hypocrisy are a sore spot for me. I could write a novel as to why. He also is an asshole and he knows it. I2 is unmoderated, so it is expected that anything someone says that is untrue or another member merely dislikes is going to get heat. He also reported me for a stupid reason and insulted me by saying I was "too emotionally immature" to moderate a board while being worse off himself . He only has himself to blame for the shards of his glass house cutting him. He kicked me while I was down, he deserves what he got and more.
Does this clear anything up for you? Did you lose your 100 dollar bet?
He apologized? Where? I clearly didn't see it. I didn't see one directed at me.
This is nothing like MLA, honey. Genesis never did squat to MLA. He accused me of immaturity while being immature himself. Lies and hypocrisy are a sore spot for me. I could write a novel as to why. He also is an asshole and he knows it. I2 is unmoderated, so it is expected that anything someone says that is untrue or another member merely dislikes is going to get heat. He also reported me for a stupid reason and insulted me by saying I was "too emotionally immature" to moderate a board while being worse off himself . He only has himself to blame for the shards of his glass house cutting him. He kicked me while I was down, he deserves what he got and more.
Does this clear anything up for you? Did you lose your 100 dollar bet?
lol, Genesis an asshole? You're giving him way too much credit. He comes off as naive and in need of some guidance, but definitely not an asshole.
As for the apologies, they were there in one of Skyblue's recent threads, one in which you were actively posting (and probably still are).
He's mad because I'm talking about the dear leader. he mods over on his board, must be tough kissing someone's ass for privalages..
Or not, :zoinks:
You can be a real prick when you want to be... you know that?
Forget it Richard. That site MAY last a while, but so has WP and look how shitty it is. Just try and ignore them if you can.Yeah dude. I'm just having some fun, I'll leave them too there safe place. in time
You can be a real prick when you want to be... you know that?
Well theres a pot calling a kettle black if I ever saw one. Sneaky little fuck.
You can be a real prick when you want to be... you know that?
Well theres a pot calling a kettle black if I ever saw one. Sneaky little fuck.
:2thumbsup: Right back at you! Where were you stationed?
It was around 2003 or 2005 that he was in Iraq...
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but getting butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
It's getting dull again I think. Although that might just be me because I'm not on AFF, skyblue's site or Al's site
You are all pricks, get over it! The bickering is what fucks this site up. I don't care if any of us get along, although orgies are welcome, but getting butthurt over what somebody posts on the interwebs is extremely immature and posting mean, vindictive shit about someone on the interwebs is also very immature.
The bickering is what keeps this site alive. The drama raises the number of people online. It gets dull, then spaz, evens out, dull again, then spaz,...
Looks inevitable that there's going to be at least a "limited" military strike on Syria. So hold on to your butts, it's happening.
Looks inevitable that there's going to be at least a "limited" military strike on Syria. So hold on to your butts, it's happening.
Yeah, because the fucking "messiah" says so. What do you think of your favorite guy now, Adam? Didn't I tell ya?
Well it's official, Obama really does want to do a military strike on Syria but has called upon a congressional debate and vote (on September 9th? that's speculated, could be earlier or later). The most disturbing part is the fact a report asked him last minute, whenever or not he'll go to war without congressional approval and Obama walked off looking tense.
I have a bad feeling about this. It's his second term, there's no leverage on him to take congress' decision seriously and he could attack without approval.
War is coming.
has called upon a congressional debate and vote (on September 9th?
The fantasy dream is ending. Time to wake up and face what you've done, "progressives". Maybe even accept responsibility and help the rest of us clean up your fucking mess?
A political mess has never been cleaned up in the history of mankind. Temporary solutions are implemented (usually in the form of a bloody, and catstrophic destruction of a state), but "solutions" are as fleeting as "the key to life" and such ideas. Sadly.
A political mess has never been cleaned up in the history of mankind. Temporary solutions are implemented (usually in the form of a bloody, and catstrophic destruction of a state), but "solutions" are as fleeting as "the key to life" and such ideas. Sadly.
That's because there has never been a permanent anarchy in the world :kumbaya:
The fantasy dream is ending. Time to wake up and face what you've done, "progressives". Maybe even accept responsibility and help the rest of us clean up your fucking mess?
You kidding? Google Hillary Clinton 2016. They still asleep.
The fantasy dream is ending. Time to wake up and face what you've done, "progressives". Maybe even accept responsibility and help the rest of us clean up your fucking mess?
You kidding? Google Hillary Clinton 2016. They still asleep.
I don't want to live on this Ahmed Angel anymore.
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
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.
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.
I must repeat - that although I argue for the legitimacy of a military action as a response to chemical warfare, I'm first of all not talking about a coalition invasion, but a military action, a symbol - not for syria (cus that ship has sailed) but for everybody else. A reminder of the rules of the game, a "slap on the wrist" for the one who cheated and used sarin gas attacks, like he was playing WW1.
I must repeat - that although I argue for the legitimacy of a military action as a response to chemical warfare, I'm first of all not talking about a coalition invasion, but a military action, a symbol - not for syria (cus that ship has sailed) but for everybody else. A reminder of the rules of the game, a "slap on the wrist" for the one who cheated and used sarin gas attacks, like he was playing WW1.
The problem with that argument is that it gives the rebels the perfect excuse to use chemical weapons themselves and do a frame-up job against the leader of the very government they're trying to overthrow. Can we really trust government officials whose campaigns are financed by defence contractors to sit around waiting for UN inspectors to prove that one side or the other is in fact the one who did it?
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?
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
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.
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 :D
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 :/
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 :facepalm2:
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?
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.
The UN was established for peace. Making it actually usable would justify having it
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".
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...
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.
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.
I would agree with you, if you said _weapons_ are a right. But guns are too instantaneous and irreversible.
It's almost impossible to stab a friend to death by accident. Accidental killings happen as a regular statistic.
I agree that a state must be kept in check by its civilians, under a danger of violence, but then you have to arm civilians with mobile artillery vehicles and such.
Don't get me wrong - few things warm my heart more than seeing civilians begin to return fire on their aggressor authorities, but that is another kind of issue, than carying a 9mm pistol inside your pocket, so to shoot muggers - or someone walking towards you scarily.
Argue something else, and I'll begin to aggree: Assault rifles in peoples homes, safely locked up. NOT for carrying around. NOT for use while drunk...
The Norwegian "Home Defense" allready issue assault rifles and ammunition to be kept in homes, for quick mobilization. More of this, for example. This would give the people an edge, while they wait for army defectors bringing with them heavy equipment (if not, any resistance is pointless).
Handguns are not enough to achieve this, since they wont even penetrate most modern soldiers armor.
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.
I would agree with you, if you said _weapons_ are a right. But guns are too instantaneous and irreversible.
It's almost impossible to stab a friend to death by accident. Accidental killings happen as a regular statistic.
I agree that a state must be kept in check by its civilians, under a danger of violence, but then you have to arm civilians with mobile artillery vehicles and such.
Don't get me wrong - few things warm my heart more than seeing civilians begin to return fire on their aggressor authorities, but that is another kind of issue, than carying a 9mm pistol inside your pocket, so to shoot muggers - or someone walking towards you scarily.
Argue something else, and I'll begin to aggree: Assault rifles in peoples homes, safely locked up. NOT for carrying around. NOT for use while drunk...
The Norwegian "Home Defense" allready issue assault rifles and ammunition to be kept in homes, for quick mobilization. More of this, for example. This would give the people an edge, while they wait for army defectors bringing with them heavy equipment (if not, any resistance is pointless).
Handguns are not enough to achieve this, since they wont even penetrate most modern soldiers armor.
Its also almost impossible to shoot a friend to death if you use a gun properly, like a full grown adult.
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.
I would agree with you, if you said _weapons_ are a right. But guns are too instantaneous and irreversible.
It's almost impossible to stab a friend to death by accident. Accidental killings happen as a regular statistic.
I agree that a state must be kept in check by its civilians, under a danger of violence, but then you have to arm civilians with mobile artillery vehicles and such.
Don't get me wrong - few things warm my heart more than seeing civilians begin to return fire on their aggressor authorities, but that is another kind of issue, than carying a 9mm pistol inside your pocket, so to shoot muggers - or someone walking towards you scarily.
Argue something else, and I'll begin to aggree: Assault rifles in peoples homes, safely locked up. NOT for carrying around. NOT for use while drunk...
The Norwegian "Home Defense" allready issue assault rifles and ammunition to be kept in homes, for quick mobilization. More of this, for example. This would give the people an edge, while they wait for army defectors bringing with them heavy equipment (if not, any resistance is pointless).
Handguns are not enough to achieve this, since they wont even penetrate most modern soldiers armor.
Its also almost impossible to shoot a friend to death if you use a gun properly, like a full grown adult.
I know.
But people aren't responsible. They're often poorly educated, rash, and well, drunk.
I've had gun training. I know how to carry and hold an assault rifle properly. I've actually guarded weapon caches with a "sharp" rifle (as we call it here) and orders including to shoot to kill.
I'm not some hysterical who thinks guns are gonna go off by themselves, or by bumping into them or something. People DO blast each others tho, and they do it accidentally, and they do it cus they lack the proper education. Oh, and guess where they do it! In America! I mean, hello, shouldn't you guys be like breast-fed with gun responsability rules by now!?
Like I said, give people spears at least, cus then you actually have to use some muscle to accidentally thrust it through someones head. You know what I mean? I do get all your arguments, I really do. I just find "guns for everyone" too risky a prospect to allow. Assault rifles in locked boxes, YES. But lock them and only use them when the country goes to hell!
I have NO idea what people need to bring military weapons to the grocery store for. What are we even talking about!? :(
Oh, and guess where they do it! In America! I mean, hello, shouldn't you guys be like breast-fed with gun responsability rules by now!?
Fucking Muslims. let them kill each other until none of them are left, :wanker:
Why should we care if they are fighting each other? lets give them more reason to want to fight us for invading the Islam world can we?
WILL WE EVER LEARN?!
I doubt it. :thumbdn:
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.
I am still thinking about things. :-\
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...
Fucking Muslims. let them kill each other until none of them are left, :wanker:
Why should we care if they are fighting each other? lets give them more reason to want to fight us for invading the Islam world can we?
WILL WE EVER LEARN?!
I doubt it. :thumbdn:
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
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...
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded. It is actually happening so slowly, that the average person does not even have a clue that their rights are being restrictricted.
This is why honest, law abiding people like me have used some of our limited resources to amass weaponry and seemingly excessive LOADS of ammunition in amounts that seem to be beyond reason to the "average person." It is those average persons who will be hurting if "PUSH EVER COMES TO shove." We who have taken advantage of our rights will be able to arm our "friends" to keep us all safe, if we have to travel together in the future.
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
QuoteOh, and guess where they do it! In America! I mean, hello, shouldn't you guys be like breast-fed with gun responsability rules by now!?
Ah no. We're breastfed socialist ideals, bigger gvt is better, mindless living habits, DEPENDENCY. Sorry to put down my own country, but America is no longer the kind of place its reputed to be. Personal responsibility is actually villainized here, dude.
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
Isn't it illegal in the UK to film police even if if they are abusing their power? Ya know, stuff like that.
Um, no. It's not.
So some police officers have been assholes and tried to stop people filming them at protests etc? You think we should, what, SHOOT them?
Start a revolution?
Yeah, coz that would make things better
That's hardly something to kill over, is it?
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
That question AGAIN? Only a sucker believes they are safe when they bend over.
(http://static2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Mfw+_858765c2937a92ac29ec96eff7e76abd.gif)
And if you started shooting people becaues the police prevented you from filming them, I think many would say you're insane
Um, no. It's not.
So some police officers have been assholes and tried to stop people filming them at protests etc? You think we should, what, SHOOT them?
Start a revolution?
Yeah, coz that would make things better
That's hardly something to kill over, is it?
Um, no. It's not.
So some police officers have been assholes and tried to stop people filming them at protests etc? You think we should, what, SHOOT them?
Start a revolution?
Yeah, coz that would make things better
That's hardly something to kill over, is I didn't read the whole thread. I just read dirtdawg's post. It has happened in other countries like Cuba. Take away the guns, leave the citizens defenseless. My iPad is being funky. Will reply later.
And if you started shooting people becaues the police prevented you from filming them, I think many would say you're insane
Freedom is worth more than life itself. The end. If you disagree with that, I strongly urge you to explain why.
Um, no. It's not.
So some police officers have been assholes and tried to stop people filming them at protests etc? You think we should, what, SHOOT them?
Start a revolution?
Yeah, coz that would make things better
That's hardly something to kill over, is it?
Why would a revolution aganist this so called society be a bad thing, no matter if it were in Europe or America?
And if you started shooting people becaues the police prevented you from filming them, I think many would say you're insane
Freedom is worth more than life itself. The end. If you disagree with that, I strongly urge you to explain why.
Adam isn't :viking: He doesn't have the urge for freedom and the wish to see tyrants bleed :arrr:
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
Isn't it illegal in the UK to film police even if if they are abusing their power? Ya know, stuff like that.
I don't see many Americans defending themselves against the cops either. No, I don't think it's illegal. It's not illegal in Sweden, although the cops might illegally hinder you from filming them. They might do that (and have done it) in the US too.
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
Isn't it illegal in the UK to film police even if if they are abusing their power? Ya know, stuff like that.
I don't see many Americans defending themselves against the cops either. No, I don't think it's illegal. It's not illegal in Sweden, although the cops might illegally hinder you from filming them. They might do that (and have done it) in the US too.
The thought of relying on psychotic cops to defend us from criminals is scary. Many dont care and are dirty.
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
Would you elaborate?
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
Would you elaborate?
What's to elaborate? It's a question. The calls from Democrats in the House and Senate for more gun control have come to nothing. Who's coming for your guns, and where are they hiding?
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
Would you elaborate?
What's to elaborate? It's a question. The calls from Democrats in the House and Senate for more gun control have come to nothing. Who's coming for your guns, and where are they hiding?
The same people who called for votes in the house and senate last time, strengthened by our christly president's word, and backed by the vote of a growing number of comfortably numb americans.
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
I hold regrets for you pansy-ass Euro-types who can not arm yourselves properly.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!
:laugh:
btw, what are you expecting? What do you think you'll have to defend yourself from "in the future"?
That's what I thought.
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
You have got to be shitting us all with this remark.
From where else do incremental laws restricting rights a little at a time emerge? The Congress!!
Honestly, do your own research. I do not have the time to educate another.
That's what I thought.
You and I have more in common than I expected, young friend.
Gun ownership is one of those rights, established by our very own constitution more than two hundred years ago, that is being incrementally eroded.
By whom??? Certainly not Congress.
Would you elaborate?
What's to elaborate? It's a question. The calls from Democrats in the House and Senate for more gun control have come to nothing. Who's coming for your guns, and where are they hiding?
The same people who called for votes in the house and senate last time, strengthened by our christly president's word, and backed by the vote of a growing number of comfortably numb americans.
So no one who actually has any money then? Okay.
Trust me, your guns are safe. I've worked with these people and I've seen what they do. None of it will come to anything.
Syria is so 2013.
Syria is so 2013.
America didn't invade an oil-rich country. :orly: We occasionally behave ourselves. :M
Syria is so 2013.
America didn't invade an oil-rich country. :orly: We occasionally behave ourselves. :M
Did some other oil-rich country get in the way? :zoinks:
OMG, why hasn't the US liberated Ecuador yet? :GA:
OMG, why hasn't the US liberated Ecuador yet? :GA:
Or Australia? :orly:
OMG, why hasn't the US liberated Ecuador yet? :GA:
Or Australia? :orly:
:arrr:
I admire Obama for the stand he is taking.
I admire Obama for the stand he is taking.
What stand?? he did next to nothing.
I admire Obama for the stand he is taking.
What stand?? he did next to nothing.
Do you think bob will answer?
I admire Obama for the stand he is taking.
What stand?? he did next to nothing.
Do you think bob will answer?
Maybe, bob posted here yesterday.
Bob said hello in my karma thread.I admire Obama for the stand he is taking.
What stand?? he did next to nothing.
Do you think bob will answer?
Maybe, bob posted here yesterday.
Really? Where? :o
Bob said hello in my karma thread.I admire Obama for the stand he is taking.
What stand?? he did next to nothing.
Do you think bob will answer?
Maybe, bob posted here yesterday.
Really? Where? :o