http://gamingtrend.com
April 21, 2014, 08:31:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: how come we're not attacking syria?  (Read 8162 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: August 27, 2013, 07:08:09 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Oh, and he didn't get Bin Laden (the justification for f*cking everything up)

of course if he was setting them up to fail and be disgraced it was a brilliant move slywink
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8523



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: August 27, 2013, 07:08:45 PM »

School of the Americas, Operation Gladio, Iranian coup, Bay of Pigs,...
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15024


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: August 27, 2013, 07:11:44 PM »

I think we're off track here. I'm not sure how bringing up mistakes from the past justifies us making another mistake again.

There is no gain for the US or NATO or any of our allies to strike Syria. Syria is not a threat to the US (at least that was claimed of Iraq).

There is no evidence that Assad used chem weapons. There is suspected use of chem weapons on the part of the rebels.

Yet off we go again to make the same mistake we made just over 10 years ago.

Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1563


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: August 27, 2013, 07:45:03 PM »

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 07:11:44 PM

There is no evidence that Assad used chem weapons. There is suspected use of chem weapons on the part of the rebels.

There are an awful lot of people (who would likely be in a better position to know) who think you are wrong here.  You may wish to revise that to something along the lines of the evidence is not 100% incontrovertible (yet)....
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #84 on: August 27, 2013, 07:50:40 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 07:45:03 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 07:11:44 PM

There is no evidence that Assad used chem weapons. There is suspected use of chem weapons on the part of the rebels.

There are an awful lot of people (who would likely be in a better position to know) who think you are wrong here.  You may wish to revise that to something along the lines of the evidence is not 100% incontrovertible (yet)....

Yeah, I'm in no position to evaluate that charge myself, but its veracity is key. If Assad is gassing civilians then maybe he deserves to be bitch-slapped for it...whereas it's a whole other can of worms if this is another "OMG Saddam has WMD!" situation.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5072



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: August 27, 2013, 08:08:38 PM »

8 Reasons Not to Go to War in Syria

Quote
1. If the rebels win, it’s bad news for the U.S.
2. If Assad wins, it’s bad news for the U.S.
3. It’s far from certain that any "limited" actions would actually be effective.
4. It’s hard to keep limited actions limited.
5. There’s no endgame.
6. The chemical weapons “red line” was already crossed.
7. It won’t be easy.
8. The public opposes military intervention by a wide margin—even if chemical weapons have been used.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: August 27, 2013, 08:23:01 PM »

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 07:11:44 PM


There is no evidence that Assad used chem weapons. There is suspected use of chem weapons on the part of the rebels.


That's an odd way to write that.  It sounds sympathetic to Assad.  I would just point out that both sides are rumored to have used chem weapons and that clear evidence hasn't been presented to support either claims.

Quote
7. It won’t be easy.

This kind of thing shouldn't be.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: August 27, 2013, 08:44:17 PM »

As said before there is evidence the rebels used chemical weapons also, so why didn't we bomb them when it happened?
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: August 27, 2013, 08:51:05 PM »

There's hearsay, there's no evidence.  I'm not saying either side did or didn't.  I'm just saying there's no solid evidence beyond the usual "Middle Eastern sources claim" right now for either case.  The few videos floating around purporting to be of rebels loading gas canisters onto rockets could be just as easily attributed to a variety of other ordinance.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 09:11:55 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 27, 2013, 09:39:59 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on August 27, 2013, 07:01:55 PM

we should give them all marijuana and let them smoke themselves to death.

Or die in Camel accidents.

 ninja
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: August 27, 2013, 09:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Oh, and he didn't get Bin Laden (the justification for f*cking everything up)


WHAT? I thought Iraq had free elections, and I certainly hadn't realized the Muslim Brotherhood was running Afghanistan and Pakistan. You would think they would get along better if that was the case.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: August 27, 2013, 10:11:10 PM »

Hmmm.

Quote
Another official told CNN the intelligence report would include forensic evidence and intercepted communications among Syrian military commanders.
Debate within the administration over what information to release included the CIA and other intelligence agencies arguing there was no need, and perhaps harm, in divulging details, two U.S. officials told CNN's Evan Perez.
One of the officials noted that the U.S. conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible, as expressed by Carney and Kerry, made releasing underling intelligence superfluous.
Carney said Tuesday there was "no doubt" in the administration that chemical weapons were used by the al-Assad government, telling reporters that "we see no evidence of any alternative scenario."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/politics/us-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

OK, so as long as the executive branch is convinced there is no reason to release any proof. Not like the American people or the rest of the world has any reason to doubt it, right? Because everyone trusts them to look at it and decide.

 Roll Eyes

At least the Bush administration was willing to fabricate and misrepresent intel to convince people. Lot easier to just say it exists but we can't/won't show it to anyone less it be discovered that it is far from certain.

 paranoid
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: August 27, 2013, 10:14:57 PM »

The sad thing is that your final statement wasn't actually a joke on your part.  I'm betting you really feel that way.   Tongue
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #93 on: August 27, 2013, 10:27:41 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 10:14:57 PM

The sad thing is that your final statement wasn't actually a joke on your part.  I'm betting you really feel that way.   Tongue

So you are willing to just accept that the evidence is concrete?

Would you be so willing if it was say Jeb Bush, Romney, or Palin in the WH?
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15024


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: August 27, 2013, 10:28:53 PM »

Quote
The White House offered legal justification, with spokesman Jay Carney telling reporters the large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria presented a national security threat to the United States that required a response.


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

WTF? How is this possible? How is this happening again 12 years later? 
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 27, 2013, 10:33:53 PM »

Quote from: Rip on August 27, 2013, 10:27:41 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 10:14:57 PM

The sad thing is that your final statement wasn't actually a joke on your part.  I'm betting you really feel that way.   Tongue

So you are willing to just accept that the evidence is concrete?

Would you be so willing if it was say Jeb Bush, Romney, or Palin in the WH?

No, I'm not happy with being lied to just as much as I dislike being kept in the dark.  I was pointing out that your partisanship was silly.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5072



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: August 27, 2013, 10:45:20 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 04:33:15 PM

Israel has got to be shitting bricks over this.  It seems like any military action by the U.S. in that region eventually (rather quickly too) results in reprisals against them.

Israel Warns Syria Not to Attack in Reprisal for Any U.S. Strike

Quote
Netanyahu met today with top officials with security responsibilities as the U.S. and allies discussed how to respond to an alleged chemical attack outside Damascus that they blame on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Syrian and Iranian officials said earlier this week that a U.S. attack on Syria could draw retaliation directed against Israel.

Following the meeting, the Israeli leader went on television to warn Assad’s government against such a reprisal.

“Israel is not a part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt to hurt us, we will respond, and respond powerfully,” Netanyahu said.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: August 27, 2013, 10:48:08 PM »

If I were Syria, I'd be more afraid of what Israel could do than anyone else.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 27, 2013, 10:50:52 PM »

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 10:28:53 PM

Quote
The White House offered legal justification, with spokesman Jay Carney telling reporters the large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria presented a national security threat to the United States that required a response.


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

WTF? How is this possible? How is this happening again 12 years later? 

There was at least a couple of more compelling reasons put forth in that push, despite in hindsight it being obvious it was fabricated and exagerrated.

First Iraq was MUCH more capable from a military standpoint than Syria, which is something I would hope we can all agree on.

Secondly the accusations focused on a NUCLEAR WMD threat, in fact iirc there was plenty of chemical weapons found and it was obvious they had been used(kurds).

Nuclear weapons even in dirty bombs can be a good reason to be scared, sarin and the like...not so much. Well at least not so much. Israel, sure I could understand their fear, but I find it almost comical to suggest that they will do this FOR ISRAEL.

I think much of the reluctance is related to, I believe pretty much all of the intel coming from Israel and the fear of accusations that it was all fabricated by "The Jewish Pigs". Which while a stretch I find unlikely, however there is a reason that it is important to verify intel from independent sources. Especially if you are going to commit an act of war based on it.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: August 27, 2013, 11:08:03 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 10:33:53 PM

Quote from: Rip on August 27, 2013, 10:27:41 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 10:14:57 PM

The sad thing is that your final statement wasn't actually a joke on your part.  I'm betting you really feel that way.   Tongue

So you are willing to just accept that the evidence is concrete?

Would you be so willing if it was say Jeb Bush, Romney, or Palin in the WH?

No, I'm not happy with being lied to just as much as I dislike being kept in the dark.  I was pointing out that your partisanship was silly.

I'm not being partisan, I was duped, and in hindsight I am rather disgustedthat it resulted in a very expensive war that gained us pretty much nothing. When Bush made his case I watched every second and came away feeling it was an unwanted action and somewhat aggravated that we failed to finish the job the first time, we should have just wiped him out and gifted it to Kuwait and sent them a bill for our costs. I would feel horrible but it was apparently a good enough case to convince a vast mahority of people here and abroad that it was needed so it was supported.

This time very few people think so but we are told "just trust me", besides I don't need your approval. Excuse me for being skeptical but I can assure you I would be every bit as skeptical and resistant even if it was one of the one of the people I mentioned earlier. Hell I would want to have the "evidence" disclosed to me even if it was my dad, although I can understand that some souces/methods would need to be protected. But ZERO evidence is unacceptable. Both parties had every reason and capability of doing it and if anything we shoudld take action against BOTH parties, because I am quite certain that neither one is above or would hesitate in doing it.
Logged
Grifman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 60


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: August 27, 2013, 11:09:24 PM »

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 03:26:23 PM

Quote from: Grifman on August 27, 2013, 03:09:30 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 26, 2013, 08:24:56 PM

Quote from: Grifman on August 26, 2013, 07:46:40 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 04, 2011, 01:20:37 PM

Seems their crackdown is as bad if not worse than libya's?

Looks like you are going to get your wish!

Not my wish.  I've said as much.

Then what were you complaining about?

Read the thread and then come back and answer your own question.

No, not my problem.
Logged
Grifman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 60


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: August 27, 2013, 11:12:02 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

And what exactly could Obama have done to stop it?  I assume you have an alternative action that could have been taken that would have resulted in a different answer?  Frankly, I think there was very little the US could have done no matter what it wanted.  But feel free to tell me smile
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2013, 11:12:22 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 10:48:08 PM

If I were Syria, I'd be more afraid of what Israel could do than anyone else.

I wouldn't be as worried what they could do as what they are willing to.
Logged
Grifman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 60


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: August 27, 2013, 11:13:33 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Oh, and he didn't get Bin Laden (the justification for f*cking everything up)

You're mistaken.  The Muslim Brotherhood is not involved in those countries.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: August 27, 2013, 11:15:18 PM »

Quote from: Grifman on August 27, 2013, 11:13:33 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Oh, and he didn't get Bin Laden (the justification for f*cking everything up)

You're mistaken.  The Muslim Brotherhood is not involved in those countries.

I was confused by his post as well at first.  what he means is Bush got involved in those three countries, not that the Brotherhood is involved.

don't worry Pyper, I get you!!!
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: August 27, 2013, 11:17:03 PM »

Quote from: Grifman on August 27, 2013, 11:12:02 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

And what exactly could Obama have done to stop it?  I assume you have an alternative action that could have been taken that would have resulted in a different answer?  Frankly, I think there was very little the US could have done no matter what it wanted.  But feel free to tell me smile

we did the best thing we could have done:  sit back and watched as they were given enough rope to hang themselves.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Grifman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 60


View Profile
« Reply #106 on: August 27, 2013, 11:17:36 PM »

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 07:11:44 PM

There is no evidence that Assad used chem weapons. There is suspected use of chem weapons on the part of the rebels.

You keep saying that as if you have all the facts.  You have ONE newpaper article saying that the rebels MAY have been involved.  I've read a number of articles and that's the only ONE I've read asserting that.  And I've read others stating that the weapons used to deliver the chemical weapons are only used by the regime, that the rebels don't have those weapons.  Now I don't know the truth myself, but I am seeking answers.  You can't keep clinging to that one article.
Logged
Grifman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 60


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: August 27, 2013, 11:20:27 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on August 27, 2013, 11:15:18 PM

I was confused by his post as well at first.  what he means is Bush got involved in those three countries, not that the Brotherhood is involved.

don't worry Pyper, I get you!!!

My bad, or maybe his for his confusing post! smile
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #108 on: August 27, 2013, 11:22:29 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on August 27, 2013, 11:15:18 PM

Quote from: Grifman on August 27, 2013, 11:13:33 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Oh, and he didn't get Bin Laden (the justification for f*cking everything up)

You're mistaken.  The Muslim Brotherhood is not involved in those countries.

I was confused by his post as well at first.  what he means is Bush got involved in those three countries, not that the Brotherhood is involved.

don't worry Pyper, I get you!!!

So let me get this straight, you get that Pyper responded to a statement that did nothing to dispute it? OK, nice to know, I will feed that into my Pyper translator.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 27, 2013, 11:23:57 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on August 27, 2013, 11:17:03 PM

Quote from: Grifman on August 27, 2013, 11:12:02 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:54:14 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 27, 2013, 05:40:28 PM


Obama has been very consistent in helping radical Islamic terror groups gain power in the Middle East.

He's just continuing the Bush era policies.  I thought you'd be pleased.   icon_wink

Last time I checked, Bush didn't back the Muslim Brotherhood in three takeover bids in three separate countries.

And what exactly could Obama have done to stop it?  I assume you have an alternative action that could have been taken that would have resulted in a different answer?  Frankly, I think there was very little the US could have done no matter what it wanted.  But feel free to tell me smile

we did the best thing we could have done:  sit back and watched as they were given enough rope to hang themselves.

Which is likely to be the best course to take this time, nice how that works.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: August 27, 2013, 11:52:39 PM »

This is one place we shouldn't be supporting either side, both are anti US and hate us.   Both sides have been slaughtering non combatants of the other side as well, there are no good guys here, just evil side one vs evil side 2.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #111 on: August 28, 2013, 12:05:34 AM »

Quote
Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday that his government would never use such munitions against its own people, daring those who disagree to present evidence publicly.

Now if I said something was certain and they responded with this I would have to have ONE HELL of a reason to not use it to not only prove my case but prove THEY are liars.

Quote
The vice president said that beyond whatever inspectors do or do not find, common sense and the recent past point to one culprit.
"The Syrian regime are the only ones who have the weapons, have used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, have the means of delivering those weapons, have been determined to wipe out exactly the places that were attacked by chemical weapons," he said Tuesday.

I always thought I have common sense, but if this is true I guess the phrase that "common sense is not common" should actually be "common sense is EXTREMELY rare".

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:07:25 AM by Rip » Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: August 28, 2013, 12:46:29 AM »

Ok, one more last thought on what I have been able to gather given current reports and my apparent uncommon knowledge.

Quote
Some worldwide have expressed concern that intervening in Syria may provoke broader conflict in the Middle East or ensnare Western powers in another bloody conflict after years of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cameron said that he understands those concerns, vowing that any action would have to be "proportionate, ... legal (and) would have to be specifically about deterring the use of chemical weapons."
Still, he said it's critically important that action be taken to show the international taboo against chemical weapons will not be tolerated.
"This is not about wars in the Middle East; this is not even about the Syrian conflict," he said. "It's about use of chemical weapons and making sure, as a world, we deter their use and we deter the appalling scenes we've all seen on our television screens.

Couldn't agree more, however I would pose a question to Mr Cameron or anyone else who wants me to support military action due to this attack.

If the proof of WHO was responsible for this release of chemical weapons is not disclosed to a level to convince any impartial party of such. Does it really deter or as I fear actually encourage the use of them. Just in a way that appears to point to the opponent of the offending party? Because I have little doubt that much of the world is littered with groups that are more than willing to use such things against their own if it furthers their agenda.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: August 28, 2013, 01:05:32 AM »

Quote from: Rip on August 27, 2013, 11:08:03 PM

but it was apparently a good enough case to convince a vast mahority of people here and abroad that it was needed so it was supported.

You have got to be kidding me.  Do you even remember the crap Bush had to go through to get people to join up with him?  Do you remember the protests?  Do you remember the shit storm that it caused for Tony Blair and others?  I know you WANT to believe that it was somewhat better when Bush did it, but even a simple knowledge of history shows it's just as crappy now as it was then.  You have a seriously selective memory.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #114 on: August 28, 2013, 03:15:52 AM »

Quote
March 2003[edit source | editbeta]
Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1]
An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]
May 2003[edit source | editbeta]
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]
August 2004[edit source | editbeta]
An August 2004 poll showed that two-thirds (67%) of the American public believe the U.S. went to war based on incorrect assumptions.[10] The morale of the US troops has been subject to variations. Important issues are the vulnerability of the Humvee vehicles, and the great number of wounded and maimed soldiers [11] [12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

It was certainly not popular throughout but the only time that matters is just before (mostly) shortly after. the invasion.

Just be happy they didn't run or I didn't find any Foxnews poll!    icon_wink
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: August 28, 2013, 03:45:06 AM »

Wow, the god's are trying to keep me entertained tonight as I man the server watch of boredom.

I never grow tired of this happening. Makes me wish Obama had spent a few more years in Congress.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/27/Video-Biden-Will-Impeach-Bush-if-He-Attacks-Iran-Without-Congressional-Authority
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: August 28, 2013, 12:54:33 PM »

Quote from: Rip on August 28, 2013, 03:15:52 AM


It was certainly not popular throughout but the only time that matters is just before (mostly) shortly after. the invasion.

We have very different idea of what a "vast majority" means.  In my book, "nearly six in ten" does not.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile WWW
« Reply #117 on: August 28, 2013, 02:24:54 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 28, 2013, 12:54:33 PM

Quote from: Rip on August 28, 2013, 03:15:52 AM


It was certainly not popular throughout but the only time that matters is just before (mostly) shortly after. the invasion.

We have very different idea of what a "vast majority" means.  In my book, "nearly six in ten" does not.

I will grant you that vast may be overstating it, but when compared to current support for the suspected looming attack on Syria it was vastly "more" popular.

Quote
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

Even the Vietnam war at the most unpopular point was far more popular than this. Let that sink in a second, the accepted worldwide example of the US engaging in an unpopular action was NEVER ever even close to as unpopular as this. Faux democracy, FTW!
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8839


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: August 28, 2013, 02:54:53 PM »

To be fair though, how much of that is due to war weariness caused by the unexpected results we got from Iraq?  We were lied to by Bush and his administration and we got dragged into an ongoing war that still hasn't been resolved, has cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and the respect and support of large portions of the international community.  Of course people are going to more wary now.  A precedent that our government will do whatever it takes to meet an agenda has been set by Bush.  Now Obama is getting burned by the fallout from that. 

...which, to be honest, is okay in my current opinion. 
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15024


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: August 28, 2013, 03:20:55 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on August 28, 2013, 02:54:53 PM

Of course people are going to more wary now.  A precedent that our government will do whatever it takes to meet an agenda had been set looooong before  Bush.  


FTFY.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.243 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.114s, 2q)