BREAKING NEWS - UNITED STATES To Provide 'MILITARY SUPPORT' To Rebels - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027593]Be fucking realistic. He doesn't want the war to grow any larger than it is because hell will spill over and he'll lose his fucking seat at the palace and will be fucking executed. Sticking to the rules laid out and not using chemical weapons isn't a hard concept. And come on, debate my points instead of being like, READING COMPREHNSION, SIMPLICIFCATION!, DUMB RATING![/QUOTE] I'm rating you dumb because you're not understanding the conversation me and yawmwen was having.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027609]if he was interested in "the rules" then he wouldn't have used the chemical weapons in the first place nor would he have gotten the army out to shoot protesters.[/QUOTE] I mean general chemical weapons usage. We don't even know where he has used it and what kinds and on what. Just saying chemical weapons and prepping for war is silly. [editline]13th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;41027621]I'm rating you dumb because you're not understanding the conversation me and yawmwen was having.[/QUOTE] Again, debate my points rather than rating dumb, calling me an idiot and walking away. At least tell me why I'm stupid rather than just being like , lul rated.

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;41027597]A No-Fly Zone seemed to work for Libya.[/QUOTE] Because the US cruise missiled the shit out of the airfields and then sent jets to blow aircraft out of the sky.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027628]I mean general chemical weapons usage. We don't even know where he has used it and what kinds and on what. Just saying chemical weapons and prepping for war is silly.[/QUOTE] i'm p. sure it was mustard gas or something similar. they are talking about a specific chemical weapon attack from a while ago where reports were confused about whether it was rebels or regime forces carrying out the attack.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;41027628]I mean general chemical weapons usage. We don't even know where he has used it and what kinds and on what. Just saying chemical weapons and prepping for war is silly.[/QUOTE] [quote=BBC]On Thursday, Mr Rhodes said US intelligence agencies had concluded Mr Assad's forces had used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, based on battlefield reports, "descriptions of physiological symptoms" from alleged victims, and laboratory analysis of samples obtained from alleged victims.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;41027437]can we just put a big red x mark over the middle east on the map and just look away for the next few decades?[/QUOTE] That's a joke obviously but no. Western interests are tied to the stability of the MiddleEast because of it's huge oil reserves.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41027652]i'm p. sure it was mustard gas or something similar. they are talking about a specific chemical weapon attack from a while ago where reports were confused about whether it was rebels or regime forces carrying out the attack.[/QUOTE] Exactly what I'm wondering about. Chemical weapons is kind of a huge field and there's lots of different classifications.

Oh no chemical weapons are being used there. Let's give them some depleted uranium ammo.

sarin gas, not mustard gas.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41027667]That's a joke obviously but no. Western interests are tied to the stability of the MiddleEast because of it's huge oil reserves.[/QUOTE] It's more to do with the sea than the land, seeing as we get most of our oil from places were allied with in the middle east. Control where it goes and you can control the product. [editline]13th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;41027660][/QUOTE] Thanks for the source. I think we should make sure that he actually has used them and do some more investigation into it before just sending aid and other crap in. I really really don't want an iraq war 2 scenario again where we invade because of alleged shit.

Syria fucked up. America will get its way.

The United States has such a boner for intervention in the middle-east I'm totally unsurprised.

[QUOTE=Bobsters34;41026106](that is being the world police) the point is that we shouldn't get involved with a countries civil war[/QUOTE] Yet, if the French didn't get involved in the American Revolution (which was a Civil War) guess what country wouldn't be the same right now?

[QUOTE=bdd458;41028377]Yet, if the French didn't get involved in the American Revolution (which was a Civil War) guess what country wouldn't be the same right now?[/QUOTE] Well we know what would be the same, a police state.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41028385]Well we know what would be the same, a police state.[/QUOTE] I don't think you have ever lived in a police state.

Isn't there a rumor that CIA pretended to be Syrian Rebels to start all of this?

Yaaaaaayyyyyyy, we're 'liberating' more people that don't need our help and will end up hating us in 20-30 years. Wonderful. /sarcasm fucking inept cocks in Washington. We should send them all in on the front lines instead of Marines.

[QUOTE=TestECull;41029233]Yaaaaaayyyyyyy, we're 'liberating' more people that don't need our help and will end up hating us in 20-30 years. Wonderful. /sarcasm fucking inept cocks in Washington. We should send them all in on the front lines instead of Marines.[/QUOTE] Yeah because the Syrians totally don't need help and half the US wasn't begging the government to do this all year.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;41029341]Yeah because the Syrians totally don't need help and half the US wasn't begging the government to do this all year.[/QUOTE] When you say Syrians, do you mean the Syrians who support the government or the Syrians who support any of the rebel factions?

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;41025791][b]this would have been idea when the war first started[/b] ( well maybe just some aid ) when the rebels had a just case but they left or died and who is left is just as bad or worse than Assd[/QUOTE] You can't say that, I imagine a lot of the rebels still just want their country back, but we just hear a lot more about the atrocities from both sides. I agree though, if arms were sent at the start of the revolution it'd have helped a lot more.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;41029341]Yeah because the Syrians totally don't need help and half the US wasn't begging the government to do this all year.[/QUOTE] Are you quite sure it was half of American or is that hyperbole

Didn't you see the street protests in America like 150 million people went

Do the leaders of our countries have an inability to understand or know history? Because the constantly repeat bad history.

There is probably a reason. They clearly don't have the commoner's best interests in their minds.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;41030496]There is probably a reason. They clearly don't have the commoner's best interests in their minds.[/QUOTE] It's political, what they're going to do is try to remove Russia's influence and alliance with Syria, effectively cutting off their only mediterranian port outside the black sea.

NO, Obama you idiot! Once decision I simply cannot agree with.

Gotta love how Obama is a Nobel [B]peace[/B] prize winner.

ok it's official: i regret voting for barack obama

I'm alright with this as long as we just give them weapons and don't send any of our troops over, that, and we give the weapons over to the 'good' rebels. (If there are any that can be found.)

America doing their usual shenanigans. lel