One point I wonder, and I always want to bring up.
The U.S. always gets involved in things like this. Blah, blah, blah, silly U.S. playing World Police.
Thing is, Syria is messing with chemical weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that one of the things you flat out don't do, ever? If Syria is left alone, does everyone really think it'll turn out okay? That the end result will be perfectly fine?
Someone has to get involved. I want to see other countries stepping in, and saying "No, Syria, you can't do that," and enforcing [I]global[/I] policy.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42022700]One point I wonder, and I always want to bring up.
The U.S. always gets involved in things like this. Blah, blah, blah, silly U.S. playing World Police.
Thing is, Syria is messing with chemical weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that one of the things you flat out don't do, ever? If Syria is left alone, does everyone really think it'll turn out okay? That the end result will be perfectly fine?
Someone has to get involved. I want to see other countries stepping in, and saying "No, Syria, you can't do that," and enforcing [I]global[/I] policy.[/QUOTE]
The issue that a lot of people (including Kerry for that matter) feel there is is that if no one responds to this then what do Iran, North Korea and friends think? What is to stop them using WMDs?
IMO there is precedent for this as well, if you look at Iraq after they used CWs against Iran unpunished.
[editline]30th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42022699]There goes my credibility, thanks.[/QUOTE]
Its okay, there's worse news sources. I don't think they are intentionally incorrect, I just don't think they know what on earth they are talking about and misinterpret things and never cite where they see these things.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;42022155]Well that's rich coming from the US.
*cough* Agent Orange *cough*[/QUOTE]
1) That was nearly [I]50[/I] years ago. Times, policies and people change
2) It wasn't being used as a direct weapon, it was made to clear forests
3) We hadn't done the research long enough to see what it's long term effects were
4) A lot of servicemen were affected by it too, not just Vietnamese civilians
We all understand that Agent Orange is a horrific, and ultimately destructive sort of chemical weaponry. It was all a massive mistake.
This is being used [I]intentionally[/I]
So where is the proof that Assad is behind the chem attack?
No grainy photos of trucks?
No satellite images?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;42022855]1) That was nearly [I]50[/I] years ago. Times, policies and people change
2) It wasn't being used as a direct weapon, it was made to clear forests
3) We hadn't done the research long enough to see what it's long term effects were
4) A lot of servicemen were affected by it too, not just Vietnamese civilians
We all understand that Agent Orange is a horrific, and ultimately destructive sort of chemical weaponry. It was all a massive mistake.
This is being used [I]intentionally[/I][/QUOTE]
Except the victims aren't changing and there are people still suffering from it today and more tomorrow
"Damned if we do, damned if we dont"
Everyone in the US does not want another Iraq-like war. The fact that they said that we wont put boots on the ground is very good. Congress likely wont be called back early. Everyone wants the facts and as they said, "Everyone says something has to be done in Syria, but no one wants to be the one to do it"
[QUOTE=Alyx;42023071]Except the victims aren't changing and there are people still suffering from it today and more tomorrow[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, how does that make what Zillamaster said wrong?
I'm glad there's at least no clear rush to intervene this time, like with Libya where Gaddafi's troops were rapidly advancing on Benghazi and we had to do something fast
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;42021848]My fucking ass.[/QUOTE]
Even that would make a better choice than congress.
[QUOTE=Alyx;42023071]Except the victims aren't changing and there are people still suffering from it today and more tomorrow[/QUOTE]
Thought process behind Agent Orange:
"Wow, these jungles are really dense! Hey, this chemical seems to do a fantastic job at tearing down fauna, so let's take down these overgrown jungles, and that'll make the fight easier!"
[B]NOT[/B]
"Alright, we need a new weapon to use against the Vietcong. Agent Orange? Sounds devastating, but it's what we need."
And then when they realized how devastating it actually was:
"Shit, shit, shit, we're [B]really[/B] sorry. Let's try to make it up, seriously, we didn't know, sorry."
[B]Meanwhile in Syria:[/B]
"What's the quickest way to dispose of our enemies?"
"Chemical weaponry."
"Use it."
What will happen then?
If America strikes, will they be striked back?
[QUOTE=CMPunk444;42023687]What will happen then?
If America strikes, will they be striked back?[/QUOTE]
You dont want to strike the USA. Fecal matter would hit the air circulation device faster than you've ever seen before
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42022700]One point I wonder, and I always want to bring up.
The U.S. always gets involved in things like this. Blah, blah, blah, silly U.S. playing World Police.
Thing is, Syria is messing with chemical weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that one of the things you flat out don't do, ever? If Syria is left alone, does everyone really think it'll turn out okay? That the end result will be perfectly fine?
Someone has to get involved. I want to see other countries stepping in, and saying "No, Syria, you can't do that," and enforcing [I]global[/I] policy.[/QUOTE]
Fucking THIS. This is the only time I am ok with western military intervention in the middle east.
But now thats bad, where the fuck where these guys when the US was wasting trillions on a war on terror that ended up causing more terrorism and unstableness in the middleeast.
But when a country that so happens to be in the middle east broke international laws and used chemical warfare on innocent civilians than the US cant enforce global policy because "hurrr duurr world police lol".
People need to understand that this is completely different than the dumbshit we were doing before.
[QUOTE=Gatsby;42024763]Fucking THIS. This is the only time I am ok with western military intervention in the middle east.
But now thats bad, where the fuck where these guys when the US was wasting trillions on a war on terror that ended up causing more terrorism and unstableness in the middleeast.
But when a country that so happens to be in the middle east broke international laws and used chemical warfare on innocent civilians than the US cant enforce global policy because "hurrr duurr world police lol".
People need to understand that this is completely different than the dumbshit we were doing before.[/QUOTE]
Has anyone actually come up with a plan for what to do once we decide to intervene with our military?
I mean are we just going to cripple Assad's regime if he's the one who used the chemical weapons then let the genocidal religious extremists fill in the power vacuum? What else could we do? Who could we support to take over in Assad's place? What even is the lesser evil in this case, how could we support it, and what would we do if all the other rebel factions banded together to resist our actions?
Does anyone have a plan?
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42023683]Thought process behind Agent Orange:
"Wow, these jungles are really dense! Hey, this chemical seems to do a fantastic job at tearing down fauna, so let's take down these overgrown jungles, and that'll make the fight easier!"
[B]NOT[/B]
"Alright, we need a new weapon to use against the Vietcong. Agent Orange? Sounds devastating, but it's what we need."
And then when they realized how devastating it actually was:
"Shit, shit, shit, we're [B]really[/B] sorry. Let's try to make it up, seriously, we didn't know, sorry."
[B]Meanwhile in Syria:[/B]
"What's the quickest way to dispose of our enemies?"
"Chemical weaponry."
"Use it."[/QUOTE]
It's easy for them to apologize and say sorry. It's quite clear they didn't give a shit though. People there are still demanding compensation for deaths or lifelong mutations and they aren't getting it.
And despite multiple anti-chemical warfare conventions in place the US used it any way. To protect a hilariously corrupt and oppressive government. Go freedom!
[editline]30th August 2013[/editline]
Seriously dude. They fucking KNEW it was carcinogenic and extremely dangerous before they deployed it. Don't give me that bullshit about not knowing.
[quote=Wikipedia]Prior to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, there was already a large body of scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T to serious negative health effects and ecological damage.[18][/quote]
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;42025269]Go freedom![/QUOTE]
Government of 1968 America =/= Government of 2013 America
get that through your head first
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;42028141]Government of 1968 America =/= Government of 2013 America
get that through your head first[/QUOTE]
Because pretending they're different and slightly altering policy means they have really changed, right?
This shit has been pulled plenty of times before. E.g. post WWI, post WW2, and others.
[editline]31st August 2013[/editline]
Look at the US's torture camps and ridiculous prison policy. Not to mention how they ship off people they don't like - sorry, "terrorists" - to other countries to be tortured.
Was Kerry there? No? Then shut the fuck up, Kerry. Stop Warmongering you tit
Anyone remember "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for Duty!" *Salute*
What a joke
[QUOTE=TheTalon;42029712]Was Kerry there? No? Then shut the fuck up, Kerry. Stop Warmongering you tit
Anyone remember "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for Duty!" *Salute*
What a joke[/QUOTE]
You weren't either, so you shut the fuck up.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42029752]You weren't either, so you shut the fuck up.[/QUOTE]
lol. As if I had to be to know that Blaming one side 100% before UN investigators even got to the attack sites, and calling for war against that side over it is retarded
[QUOTE=TheTalon;42029798]lol. As if I had to be to know that Blaming one side 100% before UN investigators even got to the attack sites, and calling for war against that side over it is retarded[/QUOTE]
We were never calling for a war, first off. And congress, and the white house have been speculating that it may have been the rebels. Nevermind that speech Kerry made. Even though the missiles used to launch the gas are out of the rebels grasp lol
[QUOTE=TheTalon;42029712]Was Kerry there? No? Then shut the fuck up, Kerry. Stop Warmongering you tit
Anyone remember "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for Duty!" *Salute*
What a joke[/QUOTE]
He might not have been there but there's this amazing thing called military intelligence, whilst it might have been a bit flawed in the past it is quite a good way to know what another country is doing at any moment.
Stop being so cynical and anti-government just for the sake of being so, occasionally (its shocking, I know) a government is right!
[editline]31st August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;42029798]lol. As if I had to be to know that Blaming one side 100% before UN investigators even got to the attack sites, and calling for war against that side over it is retarded[/QUOTE]
Are you aware of what the remit for the UN inspectors is? It sounds like you don't. They are there to report if chemical weapons were used or not, not how they were delivered or who they think did it. That is the job for an intelligence agency.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
