# USA moving to potentially strike syria



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

In case you missed it yes the usa is finally going to attack Assad's forces after Assad was caught red handed gassing 2000 civilians mostly children in their sleep.  USA forces could launch strikes against Assad as early as thursday.  It's probably going to be like what NATO did in Libya and not on the ground forces again.

What do you think about this?  I say fucker needs to die.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 27, 2013)

It was always inevitable that this was gonna happen. I mean the moment people got wind of this and after the precedent set in Libya everyone knew this was gonna happen sooner or later. In the same way it's inevitable that when Assad is eventually usurped, he'll be violently killed by his own people, and someone equally as shit will succeed him in the ensuing political chaos.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> It was always inevitable that this was gonna happen. I mean the moment people got wind of this and after the precedent set in Libya everyone knew this was gonna happen sooner or later. In the same way it's inevitable that when Assad is eventually usurped, he'll be violently killed by his own people, and someone equally as shit will succeed him in the ensuing political chaos.


I guess the moral is no matter how buddy buddy you are with another world power it won't stop the international community from kicking your ass if you go around gassing children.


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 27, 2013)

Oh man...
Here we go again. My friend is most likely going to be sent over there depending how long this lasts. Sure hope he does alright. :<


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 27, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I guess the moral is no matter how buddy buddy you are with another world power it won't stop the international community from kicking your ass if you go around gassing children.



I have a couple articles to submit to the Court Record for everyone's consideration: 
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

So you mean to tell me that not only is there evidence towards a conspiracy that the US actually backed this, but the guys we're supporting may also be using chemical weapons AND supporting Al Qaeda? 

Another thing: Why would Assad use chemical weapons if the US already threatened to go in and kick his ass if he did?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2013)

Have the UN forensics experts said it was Assad, firstly? Because until they have it's not 'undeniable' as some politicians are claiming. 


Furthermore, *why* do western nations such as the USA, France and the UK feel like they have a responsibility to use their armies to instigate a regime change in Syria? 
Surely it's not our leaders' feelings of moral obligation.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Have the UN forensics experts said it was Assad, firstly? Because until they have it's not 'undeniable' as some politicians are claiming.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, *why* do western nations such as the USA, France and the UK feel like they have a responsibility to use their armies to instigate a regime change in Syria?
> Surely it's not our leaders' feelings of moral obligation.



Supposedly the Syrian government was even willing to let the UN come in and examine the attack site. 
http://news.sky.com/story/1132856/syria-allows-un-visit-to-chemical-attack-site


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 27, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I have a couple articles to submit to the Court Record for everyone's consideration:
> http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
> http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/
> 
> So you mean to tell me that not only is there evidence towards a conspiracy that the US actually backed this, but the guys we're supporting may also be using chemical weapons AND supporting Al Qaeda?



This could in be true, however I would just like to note that the Yahoo article cites infowars.com, a conspiracy theorist site created by renowned crackpot Alex Jones which in turn cites an unknown "Malaysian hacker". 

I'm just warning that you should take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I have a couple articles to submit to the Court Record for everyone's consideration:
> http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
> http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/
> 
> ...


I meant as in just cause Assad was buds with Russia the fact that he gassed civilians isn't going to stop the usa launching strikes.


Fallowfox said:


> Furthermore, *why* do western  nations such as the USA, France and the UK feel like they have a  responsibility to use their armies to instigate a regime change in  Syria?
> Surely it's not our leaders' feelings of moral obligation.


It's called politics.  Name a period of time in the world where world powers did NOT get into everyone's business.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2013)

If it's politics, what's the real motivation?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If it's politics, what's the real motivation?



That's the billion dollar question. 

Some people are citing that Syria and Iran are allies, or something like that. So if US attacks, Iran comes to their aid, and now we have an excuse to go after both Syria and Iran.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If it's politics, what's the real motivation?


Shit ton of reasons politically.  Some generally do care about Syria, some care that Assad is using chemical warfare, some want a strike to justify the usa's large armed force's budget, some think syria and iran are allies, some want to smear it in russia's face politically, some want to use it for business purposes of our armed forces have to buy their weaponry from someone.

Pretty much how to tell if the usa is going to be in someone's business:
A internationally vilified regime AND/OR that harms it's own citizens AND/OR has attacked our allies(not in this case) and would be politically positive for those that support it AND/OR would be for arms manufacturers economically positive.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 27, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Have the UN forensics experts said it was Assad, firstly? Because until they have it's not 'undeniable' as some politicians are claiming.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, *why* do western nations such as the USA, France and the UK feel like they have a responsibility to use their armies to instigate a regime change in Syria?
> Surely it's not our leaders' feelings of moral obligation.



It's not unusual for the more powerful and developed nations to be intervening in the business of less-powerful countries to back the side/ideals they're in favour of to help their spread.

The Cold War era and conflicts within it are perfect examples of these.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

Gibby said:


> It's not unusual for the more powerful and developed nations to be intervening in the business of less-powerful countries to back the side/ideals they're in favour of to help their spread.
> 
> The Cold War era and conflicts within it are perfect examples of these.


It's called a hegemony.  Pretty much historically speaking there needs to be at least one hegemony otherwise shit goes down bad.  We may not like it, we may hate how the more powerful and developed nations get into everyone's business, but the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 27, 2013)

The Iraq war had been planned well in advance, yet the post-war occupation phase turned into a genocide-level bloody fiasco due to crass mismanagement.

What will happen to Syria with just a few months of preparation by a hypothetical US/UK coalition?


----------



## Fernin (Aug 27, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> The Iraq war had been planned well in advance, yet the post-war occupation phase turned into a genocide-level bloody fiasco due to crass mismanagement.
> 
> What will happen to Syria with just a few months of preparation by a hypothetical US/UK coalition?



Did you need to get a building permit for that mountain of hyperbole? Not saying I don't agree with the premise, but your representation there is grossly out of scale and cheapens what is otherwise a SEVERE word to use.

Anyways, at this point I'm not surprised. One way or another I suspect the middle east is going to continue to fountain up excuses to keep modern militarys employed and active for the next century at least.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Aug 27, 2013)

We were gonna attack Syria all along. I'm 90% sure the Syrian rebels were the ones gassing people in Syria since the first reports mentioned that the Syrian army to took the brunt of the casualties, which wouldn't make sense if they were the ones using the weapons. Plus the rebels were being funded, supplied, and coerced by the CIA. They're all a bunch of mercenaries we're using to wage yet another proxy war. What our intervention means is that the rebel attack was essentially the Bay of Pigs all over again and Big Bad USA needs to go in there and finish the job.

Fuck our government.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Anyways, at this point I'm not surprised. One way or another I suspect the middle east is going to continue to fountain up excuses to keep modern militarys employed and active for the next century at least.


I think every politician just creamed their pants at the idea that the arab spring is going to continue for a long time.  No seriously the idea that conflicts against oppressive governments in which we don't have to put our soldier's boots on the ground while playing the stereotypical hero that comes into save the day while at the same time using it to justify the size of our armed forces probably just gave Cheney his first orgasm in a decade.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 27, 2013)

I favour non-intervention on principle. On the other hand, although via the US and its poodles, smearing burden of the civilised world in the face of Syria and its fellow tin-pot dictatorships, ever hiding behind the excuse of a 'state's internal affairs', would be a thrill.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 27, 2013)

More money down the drain for a lost cause.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Aug 27, 2013)

op: I don't see why it's our problem to begin with. Everything is always our fucking problem. We have our own crumbling infrastructure that can't support our growing country, but no instead of spending the money to keep up with our own growth we spend it on wars we have no business being involved in. We give money we don't have to countries that hate us, try to kill us, and wouldn't help us if it came down to it. I just don't understand why the people in charge of our government do the things they do. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, I LOVE AMERICA! But I HATE the people who run it and most of the choices they make. The death of those people is a tragedy and those involved should be brought to justice but why is it always the American government that has to raise its hand like an eager child saying, "ME, ME, PICK ME!"  Oh, and the Russian government has told us not to do anything. I wonder what will happen when we do.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 27, 2013)

My, my, restless as ever till you breed Al-Qaeda the Second, aren't you?

Go , world police, go!


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 27, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> Oh, and the Russian government has told us not to do anything. I wonder what will happen when we do.



Probably the same thing that always happens. A bunch of posturing and threats that won't really lead to much.


----------



## Distorted (Aug 27, 2013)

I really wish this wasn't necessary. It reeks of secrecy. But I wonder what would happen if The US didn't do anything? I'm sure it wouldn't be any better.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Aug 27, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Probably the same thing that always happens. A bunch of posturing and threats that won't really lead to much.



Yeah, more than likely. What is Vladimir Putin going to do? Bench press a moose or something?


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Probably the same thing that always happens. A bunch of posturing and threats that won't really lead to much.


Pretty much.  I highly doubt the usa and russia are ever going to go to war in the future, and if so it's probably going to be under extreme circumstances.


Hinalle K. said:


> My, my, restless as ever till you breed Al-Qaeda the Second, aren't you?
> 
> Go , world police, go!


[YT]IhnUgAaea4M[/YT]


----------



## PsychicOtter (Aug 28, 2013)

We said earlier that chemical weapons crossed the line, and I don't think we can back down from that.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Aug 28, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> We said earlier that chemical weapons crossed the line, and I don't think we can back down from that.



Yeah we can. It's none of our business what the Syrians do to their own people. Plus, keep in mind, we don't even know for sure it wasn't the REBELS who used chemical weapons, rebels we instigated in the first place. This whole thing stinks to high heaven and I don't support any intervention whatsoever.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 28, 2013)

Can't we just mind out business for once, America? THat's all I'm asking.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 28, 2013)

I was getting bored of the land level anyways. Naval missions are always fun, hit a hospital for maximum points!


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 28, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Can't we just mind out business for once, America? THat's all I'm asking.


I already feel sorry for your soldiers that will be sent to die there.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 28, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Can't we just mind out business for once, America? That's all I'm asking.



If we do nothing everyone will bitch about how heartless the US is and how our inaction is causing the deaths of x, y, and z.

If  we do something we're accused of being the world police and are  chastised for not minding our own business and wasting our money when we  have more important problems at home.

The US cannot win.



Hinalle K. said:


> I already feel sorry for your soldiers that will be sent to die there.



I doubt they'll deploy ground forces. If it's anything like Libya it'll be more supplying weapons, providing long distance firepower, etc.


----------



## Khaki (Aug 28, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If we do nothing everyone will bitch about how heartless the US is and how our inaction is causing the deaths of x, y, and z.



Funnily enough, there was a thread complaining about this not too long ago.


----------



## Calemeyr (Aug 28, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> I already feel sorry for your soldiers that will be sent to die there.


We don't need soldiers, we have flying robo-death machines. But problem is, drones can miss their target, and you get collateral damage.

I sincerely doubt the rebels are using chemical weapons (where would they get them, Al Qaeda? Then why didn't Al Qaeda use it on us before?) despite what conspiracy theories in this thread say. But I wouldn't put it past the rebels to do horrific things themselves, turning this whole thing into a nasty sectarian conflict.

Next stop, Egypt. Somebody save the Egyptian artifacts and tombs (seriously).


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 28, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> We don't need soldiers, we have flying robo-death machines. But problem is, drones can miss their target, and you get collateral damage.



And it's certainly not a good look to respond to indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians with... more indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians. And if you _are _dealing with a government that won't hesitate to use chemical weapons against their own people (which isn't sufficiently proven with Syria - for all we know it's Al-Qaeda who let them off), such a government is not going to particularly care about foreign-inflicted casualties anyway. Apart from propaganda, that is.

Unfortunately, recent history has shown that "humanitarian airstrikes" makes as much sense as fucking for virginity, and are about as effective.


----------



## Khaki (Aug 28, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> "humanitarian airstrikes"




Where abouts did you hear this phrase get used Mayfurr?

It's bloody hilarious.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 28, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Did you need to get a building permit for that mountain of hyperbole? Not saying I don't agree with the premise, but your representation there is grossly out of scale and cheapens what is otherwise a SEVERE word to use.


Don't you *FUCKING* go there, yankee.

It was you guys who invented, repeated ad nauseam and pressured the UN into using the disgusting euphemism "genocide-like acts" in regards to the _genocide_ happening in Rwanda to weasel your way out of doing something. Oh wait, ol' Billie Boy Clinton took a trip to their in 2000 and _apologized_, so everything was totally fine again!

If your government leaves behind mountains of skulls of victims who died as "collateral damage" of "surgical strikes", crackdowns on "insurgents" who turn out to be students protesting shortages of food and clear water, drone strikes on wedding and funeral parties or died through said lack of food, water or medical treatment resulting in gangrene and epidemics, traumatized women and children who were gangraped by the rank-and-file and even finds the gall to cover up all this, I will call a fucking genocidal campaign a genocidal campaign.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 28, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> If we do nothing everyone will bitch about how heartless the US is and how our inaction is causing the deaths of x, y, and z.
> 
> If  we do something we're accused of being the world police and are  chastised for not minding our own business and wasting our money when we  have more important problems at home.
> 
> The US cannot win.



The thing about it is, when we get into these affairs, we make them worse. Bleeding hearts just need to shut their goddamned mouths


----------



## Fernin (Aug 28, 2013)

@Gryphoneer : Oooooh, so let me get this right. A bunch of assholes (and not 'us guys', I and millions of other Americans didn't want our nation to have a damn thing to do with this shit) cheapen the term, so it's OK for you to continue the trend of doing so? That makes total sense! So, if I may politely say.

Fuck Off. :3


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 28, 2013)

Aleu said:


> The thing about it is, when we get into these affairs, we make them worse. Bleeding hearts just need to shut their goddamned mouths



Well to be fair, it's hard to imagine Syria getting any worse at this point. Although I would still advocate not doing anything since we have enough shit at home to deal with. 

Doesn't matter though since they're gonna do it no matter what I say.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 28, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Well to be fair, it's hard to imagine Syria getting any worse at this point. Although I would still advocate not doing anything since we have enough shit at home to deal with.
> 
> Doesn't matter though since they're gonna do it no matter what I say.


That is a good point actually.  With Syria no matter who wins even without our intervention they're probably going to have to deal with decades of internal conflict in the future and having to rebuild.  Personally I'm on the side of intervention cause it's so bad there that by the time one side wins there won't be nothing left.  Decades of internal conflict is preferable to complete fucking total anarchy.  The question is what happens after the usa intervenes?  Are we going to stick around to help them rebuild from their civil war, or at least send money to help them rebuild?  Sending money to the new government to rebuild would probably be cheaper and take less effort.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Aug 28, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Are we going to stick around to help them rebuild from their civil war, or at least send money to help them rebuild?  Sending money to the new government to rebuild would probably be cheaper and take less effort.



Once again, I ask why it is our problem? Why should we become involved and then have to indebt ourselves to pay for their rebuilding. Money which we will have to print more of, causing the further devaluation of our dollar, or we borrow the money from china, increasing our national debt that already is hitting 17 TRILLION and that's only the number we are told about. It wouldn't surprise me if it were much higher.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Aug 28, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> Once again, I ask why it is our problem? Why should we become involved and then have to indebt ourselves to pay for their rebuilding. Money which we will have to print more of, causing the further devaluation of our dollar, or we borrow the money from china, increasing our national debt that already is hitting 17 TRILLION and that's only the number we are told about. It wouldn't surprise me if it were much higher.


It's not like you will actually help, you'll go in and fuck up. You got your war to justify the army-expenses and everybody your politicians and army-supplying-industry are happy. Also, maybe people will talk about that, rather than stuff like NSA.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 28, 2013)

things like this doesn't surprise me anymore.


----------



## Lobar (Aug 28, 2013)

The fucker has it coming, I just wish it didn't have to be us doing it for a change.



Nikolinni said:


> I have a couple articles to submit to the Court Record for everyone's consideration:
> http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
> http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/
> 
> So you mean to tell me that not only is there evidence towards a conspiracy that the US actually backed this, but the guys we're supporting may also be using chemical weapons AND supporting Al Qaeda?



So your sources for this are the Wing-Nut Daily and an international article that cites Infowars.

Uh-huh.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 28, 2013)

Lobar said:


> The fucker has it coming, I just wish it didn't have to be us doing it for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*shrugs* yeah, actually. 

Though I'm still pondering around the nets to find out if these hold any water. I did find a Youtube Video saying the same thing. But eh, we'll see. Addition: There are a lot of other articles reporting the same thing if you look, but they all cite the same info-wars article. 

I'm still wondering why Assad would do this knowing we'd go in after him. Makes no sense.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm still wondering why Assad would do this knowing we'd go in after him. Makes no sense.



Vulnerable, threatened dictators tend to not be the most rational thinkers out there so I wouldn't put it past him.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 28, 2013)

Though, can someone enlighten me as to why the article sighting infowars is a bad thing?


----------



## Lobar (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> *shrugs* yeah, actually.
> 
> Though I'm still pondering around the nets to find out if these hold any water. I did find a Youtube Video saying the same thing. But eh, we'll see. Addition: There are a lot of other articles reporting the same thing if you look, but they all cite the same info-wars article.
> 
> I'm still wondering why Assad would do this knowing we'd go in after him. Makes no sense.



Dictators like Assad surround themselves with sycophants, and after spending so much time in that sort of echo chamber, they come to fully believe their own hype (not that they were at all paragons of humility to begin with).  Assad likely assumes that literally nothing he does can be wrong.  The thought doesn't even cross his mind.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 28, 2013)

Why.

Why can't the US not get involved with foreign bullshit for once?


----------



## Llamapotamus (Aug 28, 2013)

The thing that bothers me about this "YEAH, YOU GO WORLD POLICE LOLOLOLOLOLOL" thing is that we've known Assad was your typical asshole dictator for at least 2 years now and haven't done much of anything. Guess what? Things are getting worse. Someone should take initiative at some point, and it looks as though it'll be economic failure #1 (USA) rather than economic failure #2 (Europe(except Germany(FUCK YEAH DEUTCHLAND))).


----------



## Lobar (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Though, can someone enlighten me as to why the article sighting infowars is a bad thing?



For an example of Infowars.com's standard of journalism, here's an article claiming Obama engineered Hurricane Sandy with a weather control machine to steal the election.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Aug 28, 2013)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> It's not like you will actually help, you'll go in and fuck up. You got your war to justify the army-expenses and everybody your politicians and army-supplying-industry are happy. Also, maybe people will talk about that, rather than stuff like NSA.



I agree completely. We never help. It always ends up being a complete cluster fuck and a horribly huge waste of money that usually ends up in the hands of our next "enemy" that we pick a fight with or frame a crime on so we can perpetuate the endless war our country seems to think does some sort of good. You'll get no disagreement out of me on you comment. It's all true.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 28, 2013)

Murica.
Fucking up shit and butting into other countries' affairs since the declaration of independence.


----------



## Zerig (Aug 28, 2013)

The Jews are behind this.

I just know it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 28, 2013)

Lobar said:


> For an example of Infowars.com's standard of journalism, here's an article claiming Obama engineered Hurricane Sandy with a weather control machine to steal the election.



It claims the "Ruling Elite" did it. 

Hey, if you're gonna make accusations, do it correctly.

Also, all you're doing is showing infowars is bunk. But what you should be attacking is the article. Even idiots can say wise things every now and then. This is very much going to be like the Business article I started, where everyones' counter attacks mostly consisted on attacks against Rand or whoever else I quoted, instead of the _ideas_ and what they said.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection. It claims the "Ruling Elite" did it.
> 
> Hey, if you're gonna make accusations, do it correctly.



plz stop what you are trying to do. it's not gonna work.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection. .



Stop that


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 28, 2013)

Batsy said:


> plz stop what you are trying to do. it's not gonna work.



And that is...?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 28, 2013)

Zerig said:


> The Jews are behind this.
> 
> I just know it.


Well, in a historical sense they're behind a lot of things if you go back far enough.


----------



## Lobar (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> It claims the "Ruling Elite" did it.
> 
> Hey, if you're gonna make accusations, do it correctly.



Found tree, missed forest.



Nikolinni said:


> Also, all you're doing is showing infowars is bunk. But what you should be attacking is the article. Even idiots can say wise things every now and then. This is very much going to be like the Business article I started, where everyones' counter attacks mostly consisted on attacks against Rand or whoever else I quoted, instead of the _ideas_ and what they said.





Fine, how about the fact that the article is seven months old, and this thread is discussing a current event?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 28, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Found tree, missed forest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But the article in question is relevant to things current...if you actually read it, you'd probably see that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 28, 2013)

You know is there ever going to be a time where people don't claim a tragedy was a conspiracy?


----------



## Lobar (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> But the article in question is relevant to things current...if you actually read it, you'd probably see that.



So your claim is that Obama authorized a chemical weapons strike seven months ago so he could do fuck all about it while enduring political attacks on his "red line" for half a year?  And then Assad went and finally did it anyways fully aware that we wanted him to so we could justify bombing the fuck out of him?  And Fox News inexplicably never even touched this story?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 28, 2013)

Lobar said:


> So your claim is that Obama authorized a chemical weapons strike seven months ago so he could do fuck all about it while enduring political attacks on his "red line" for half a year?  And then Assad went and finally did it anyways fully aware that we wanted him to so we could justify bombing the fuck out of him?  And Fox News inexplicably never even touched this story?



Sir, I'm also making the claim that the Syrian Rebels or someone other than Assad used the weapons...you know what? Just forget it. If you're not going to bother to read what I've said, just forget it.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> But the article in question is relevant to things current...if you actually read it, you'd probably see that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 28, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Sir, I'm also making the claim that the Syrian Rebels or someone other than Assad used the weapons...you know what? Just forget it. If you're not going to bother to read what I've said, just forget it.


He did read what you said, we all read what you said, but it's so pants on head stupid of a statement that it's physically impossible for me to mock such a statement with sarcasm when you can't outdo it in a satirical manner.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 28, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> He did read what you said, we all read what you said, but it's so pants on head stupid of a statement that it's physically impossible for me to mock such a statement with sarcasm when you can't outdo it in a satirical manner.


"What I've written is an objective statement, parasite!"


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Aug 29, 2013)

Despite it being satire, this little piece really sums up the US's current position on Syria:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/


----------



## CrazyLee (Aug 29, 2013)

Welp, might as well dig myself a hole in the ground because this is going to get ugly quick.

There's only two explanations for the gas attack. 
Either Assad or one of the militias working for him did the strike.
Or the rebels or terrorist factions did it. There's the question of how they got a hold of the gas, but considering how chaotic it is over there, it's possible they got a hold of something. Or perhaps terrorist factions got chemical weapons through their own channels from another source.

In any case it looks more and more certain that we're going to go storming in there assuming Assad did this and get us mired in something that could get ugly quick, even if we just stick with missile strikes. Already I read that Russia is moving subs and ships into the Mediterranean. Iran is threatening Israel. Russia is making vague threats that it may or may not back up.

So what happens if we strike?
- Syria, Hezbollah, or Iran (or all 3) attack Israel? 
- Iran proxy wars an attack on Israel through Syria?
- Iran blockades or attacks ships in the Strait of Hormuz?
- or, a worst case scenario, Russia gets involved and it turns into ww3?

I don't think the last one is going to happen but anything is possible. Likely it would end up into an ugly proxy war. But with everyone threatening to jump into this it's making me wonder if any of these idiots realize this is starting to look like WWI where two countries started fighting and then EVERYONE jumped in one after the other. Let's not do that, plz.

But, we're in massive debt and what a great way to fix the debt/turn public attention away from it by starting another war. I'll just be in my bunker then.


----------



## Sharg (Aug 29, 2013)

Russia won't get involved directly no matter what happens. Same for China. Biggest fallout that might happen is Iran lobbing a few rockets to Israel and getting "freedom'd" along with Syria. 
It's all about $. There are no "good" guys technically, but its just another of a series of planned wars to control oil and ensure the petrodollar.
Its sad that innocent/poor people are the ones who will suffer most. Syria was nice and stable until the west propped up the fake "arab spring".


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 30, 2013)

Latest news: UK MPs reject military action against Syria.

So it appears that Cameron won't be leading an unwilling UK into a war with Syria at the behest of the USA (unlike Tony Blair with Iraq).


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 30, 2013)

This is very funny

Americans
Are you aware that there was a satirical movie about your country titled Team America: *World Police*?

I'm always right about America, your presidents continuously want to stick their cocks into beartraps


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 30, 2013)

Clayton said:


> This is very funny
> 
> Americans
> Are you aware that there was a satirical movie about your country titled Team America: *World Police*?
> ...



It's not necessarily the presidents doing it (although they sure as hell ain't stopping it), more so a culture of interventionism that goes back all the way to FDR and World War II that gained increased prominence after 9/11 and the lesser known bit players that continue to facilitate its influence and force the hands of those who may disagree.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 30, 2013)

Hans Blix (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) makes a good point:


			
				Hans Blix said:
			
		

> We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a "moral obscenity", but would we not feel that "a measured and proportionate punishment", like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that "you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons"? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons? (emphasis added)


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 30, 2013)

CrazyLee said:


> There's only two explanations for the gas attack.
> Either Assad or one of the militias working for him did the strike.
> Or the rebels or terrorist factions did it. There's the question of how they got a hold of the gas, but considering how chaotic it is over there, it's possible they got a hold of something. Or perhaps terrorist factions got chemical weapons through their own channels from another source.


Poison gas is considered to be the "poor man's nuke" (it's still less destructive than any nuke, but this is politics). Assad probably stored gas shells as an answer to Israel's nuclear arsenal, better-than-nothing thinking.

Other possibilites include Assad didn't order the attack but someone lower on the chain of command, he has a hotheaded brother (cousin?) in his forces, or that the shells were accidentally breached in the heat of the battle. 

With all the fighting going on it will be nearly impossible for inspectors to conclusively figure out what happened; that will negatively influence the decision-making process of the Western military powers...



Mayfurr said:


> Hans Blix (former UN weapons inspector in Iraq) makes a good point:


Of course the hawks already started bawling "If we don't intervene we will normalise the use of poison gas!!!1ELEVENTY"

As if the we can't treat users of chemical weapons the same as Nazi war criminals - hound them without mercy to the ends of the  earth and the ends of their natural lives - instead of punishing the  victims by bombing their cities to rubble.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Aug 30, 2013)

My question is who benefits from the gas attack, because I don't see how Assad would benefit from the gas attack.


----------



## LittlePan (Aug 30, 2013)

The whole thing is so upsetting. I hope things improve, but the information available always seems to have further secrets buried somewhere, and its the civilians who suffer most.


----------



## Recel (Aug 30, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> My question is who benefits from the gas attack, because I don't see how Assad would benefit from the gas attack.



Killing others doesn't always needs logical reasons.


That said, I hope America bombs Syria just as good as they did with the previous countries. Bombing civilians, losing the nations thrust they want to "save" and get a bunch of suicide bombers to blow stuff up at home! I salute America for sticking with a pattern! A really stupid, counter productive pattern, but a pattern non the less!

And I can watch and read all the red-white-and-blue tears after it, in the newspapers, in the TV and on the internet. God bless America for giving us so much entertaining bullshit!

with love:
a foreigner


----------



## Inciatus (Aug 30, 2013)

Recel said:


> Killing others doesn't always needs logical reasons.
> 
> 
> That said, I hope America bombs Syria just as good as they did with the previous countries. Bombing civilians, losing the nations thrust they want to "save" and get a bunch of suicide bombers to blow stuff up at home! I salute America for sticking with a pattern! A really stupid, counter productive pattern, but a pattern non the less!
> ...


Well the US is damned if they do something and damned if they don't.


----------



## ADF (Aug 30, 2013)

The general view here is we're still not sure who is responsible because the UN inspectors have only just started their investigation, everything else is emotional speculation. Really, do we want another Iraq? Everyone remove their fingers from the triggers and think for a change, we really don't want this to blow up and have a shitstorm.

Cameron tried to push us into yet another ill thought out war but thankfully he got voted down, so the privileged toff will have to satisfy his need to send poor people's kids to die on his behalf another day. Though the slim majority that stopped us going to war is still an embarrassment, far too many of our so called elected representatives take war too lightly, but I suppose it's a easier vote if it's not you that will end up dying on the front line.

Really why is war even being humoured before the UN investigation has even concluded? Why is it even any of the UK's business? We're not an empire any more, we're not the world police. It's not our job to break up a fights between two groups which are quite frankly; both our enemies. Neither Assad or Al-Qaeda are in our good books, why even try to pick a side when we can just stay the fuck out of it? And don't give me this "war aid" bullshit, the number of invasions justified as "aid".

My vote is as bad as I may feel for the civilians caught in the middle of this mess, it's none of our business, it's not a threat to our country. Until the UN gives authorisation for members to intervene *based on actual evidence*, it's just the political class unnecessarily wasting British lives in yet another illegal war. If that hurts our position in the world like some have suggested, they can fuck right off. There is nothing negative about not acting like a war monger.

I suspect there are war profiteers lobbying somewhere in the background who would just love to invest in another years long war zone, the last decade plus has been perpetual Christmas for them and it only keeps getting better. The country doesn't need one more thing to further bankrupt it, that and what just the possibility of an invasion taking place is doing for the oil price is going to further kill our recession/depression economies.


----------



## Seekrit (Aug 30, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Well the US is damned if they do something and damned if they don't.



The only logical solution is to somehow force Canada into taking action first.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Aug 30, 2013)

Syria is going to be a repeat of Egypt and Libia isn't it? The US supporting those who wish for the destruction of the west and Israel.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Aug 30, 2013)

USA is going to make a genocide and somehow people think they are the good ones, so sad


----------



## Recel (Aug 30, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Well the US is damned if they do something and damned if they don't.



If your great leader wouldn't have shouted "We'll bomb the shit out of them!" before anyone really knew what the hell even happened, than you wouldn't be damned if you didn't deliver on a "promise" you didn't make.

Stop "laying industry and democracy" on people already. Especially stop with the volatile ones you like to drop from planes so much!


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 30, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> My question is who benefits from the gas attack, because I don't see how Assad would benefit from the gas attack.



Given how indiscriminate gas is as a weapon (with the tendency to "blow back" over the people who used it as well as the intended targets), I can't see why Assad _or_ the Syrian rebels would risk hitting their own people - let alone the exact kind of international reaction that's coming down about now.

As far as I can tell, the only party who stands to benefit from such an attack is Al-Qaeda: they want to provoke another Iraq / Afghanistan / Libya-style military intervention by the West that will turn world opinion even further against the US, while having the same forces take out (or heavily damage) Assad so that they and their mates can run Syria in his place - pushing out the Syrian opposition who simply wanted a Syrian government that was somewhat less nasty.

As Robert Fisk of the _Independent_ put it, "_If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured â€“ for the very first time in history â€“ *that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaâ€™ida.* [...] The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago._" (emphasis added)


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Aug 30, 2013)

Fighting has been heavy around Damascus. Despite being two different kinds of attacks, sarin gas shells and drone strikes are practically the same thing. They're designed to really kill the target but they are indescriminate. If civilians die as a result then so be it, at least that would be the mentality, especially in asymmetrical warfare. If Bashar al Assad's military did use sarin gas in the Damascus suburb then there must have been someone or something there that the regime considered a high enough value to use those shells.


----------



## Inciatus (Aug 30, 2013)

Recel said:


> If your great leader wouldn't have shouted "We'll bomb the shit out of them!" before anyone really knew what the hell even happened, than you wouldn't be damned if you didn't deliver on a "promise" you didn't make.
> 
> Stop "laying industry and democracy" on people already. Especially stop with the volatile ones you like to drop from planes so much!


Earlier people were crying and complaining the US wasn't doing anything. Now that they US may do something some of those same people are crying that the US may do something.


ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Fighting has been heavy around Damascus. Despite being two different kinds of attacks, sarin gas shells and drone strikes are practically the same thing. They're designed to really kill the target but they are indescriminate. If civilians die as a result then so be it, at least that would be the mentality, especially in asymmetrical warfare. If Bashar al Assad's military did use sarin gas in the Damascus suburb then there must have been someone or something there that the regime considered a high enough value to use those shells.


While there is still collateral damage regardless of the method used precision strikes generally have lower collateral damage than using other methods such as carpet bombing, gas attacks, shelling etc.


----------



## Chomps (Aug 30, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> In case you missed it yes the usa is finally going to attack Assad's forces after Assad was caught red handed gassing 2000 civilians mostly children in their sleep.  USA forces could launch strikes against Assad as early as thursday.  It's probably going to be like what NATO did in Libya and not on the ground forces again.
> 
> What do you think about this?  I say fucker needs to die.




I would just like to know why America always wants to "stick their finger" in every other countries business. They think they are the 'gift to mankind' so to say. Why cant they just leave the rest of the world alone. Take care of their own problems in their own country. This is what makes the rest of the world hate America. Dont get me wrong, I do not believe it is the citizens of America but the rulers and their greed for power, oil, etc. For once go home and forget so called "terrorism" there was no such thing until the rulers needed an excuse to fulfill their greed. Its like poking in a wound...eventually the person (country) with the wound is going to strike back and take out America very quickly. This would be tragic for the citizens of America as they will be the ones who wil suffer. Please go home and leave the rest of the world alone. ... Just my thoughts.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 30, 2013)

Chomps said:


> I would just like to know why America always wants to "stick their finger" in every other countries business. They think they are the 'gift to mankind' so to say. Why cant they just leave the rest of the world alone. Take care of their own problems in their own country. This is what makes the rest of the world hate America. Dont get me wrong, I do not believe it is the citizens of America but the rulers and their greed for power, oil, etc. For once go home and forget so called "terrorism" there was no such thing until the rulers needed an excuse to fulfill their greed. Its like poking in a wound...eventually the person (country) with the wound is going to strike back and take out America very quickly. This would be tragic for the citizens of America as they will be the ones who wil suffer. Please go home and leave the rest of the world alone. ... Just my thoughts.



They don't do it due to some kind of feeling of going on a morally righteous manifest destiny or something. They do it so they attempt to use political turmoil to prop up leaders that will (in theory) treat them favorably and give them influence over the region. 

Of course this has a history of kinda not working oh so well but hey, they're persistent.


----------



## Willow (Aug 30, 2013)

Chomps said:


> I would just like to know why America always wants to "stick their finger" in every other countries business. They think they are the 'gift to mankind' so to say. Why cant they just leave the rest of the world alone. Take care of their own problems in their own country. This is what makes the rest of the world hate America. Dont get me wrong, I do not believe it is the citizens of America but the rulers and their greed for power, oil, etc. For once go home and forget so called "terrorism" there was no such thing until the rulers needed an excuse to fulfill their greed. Its like poking in a wound...eventually the person (country) with the wound is going to strike back and take out America very quickly. This would be tragic for the citizens of America as they will be the ones who wil suffer. Please go home and leave the rest of the world alone. ... Just my thoughts.


Not saying the US has ever invaded a country under the guise they're trying to help only to take their resources but I kind of feel like turning a blind eye to this kind of thing isn't the right thing to do either.

Conspiracy theory or not, 2000 people just died. :I


----------



## ADF (Aug 30, 2013)

Chomps said:


> I would just like to know why America always wants to "stick their finger" in every other countries business. They think they are the 'gift to mankind' so to say. Why cant they just leave the rest of the world alone. Take care of their own problems in their own country. This is what makes the rest of the world hate America. Dont get me wrong, I do not believe it is the citizens of America but the rulers and their greed for power, oil, etc. For once go home and forget so called "terrorism" there was no such thing until the rulers needed an excuse to fulfill their greed. Its like poking in a wound...eventually the person (country) with the wound is going to strike back and take out America very quickly. This would be tragic for the citizens of America as they will be the ones who wil suffer. Please go home and leave the rest of the world alone. ... Just my thoughts.



America is the empire of the day and all empires try to maintain their global influence through military might and meddling in other's affairs, like the British empire before and the empires before that. The fact that the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency post Bretton Woods system when the original criteria it was chosen by is no longer valid, is a testament to America's present dominant position. But like all empires these activities inevitably bankrupt the country, they try to delay the collapse through monetary debasement and expanding its means of forcing control on others; but the results are always the same. Maintaining the empire becomes unaffordable and it collapses. It's already unaffordable for America, they're printing and indebting themselves like crazy to maintain the status quo, but it will come to and end.

The only question is if it will be a violent and messy collapse, or like the British empire it is a controlled decline.


----------



## Tiller (Aug 30, 2013)

Good. I've had enough of the media circus, so the sooner we bomb them the better. (@OP)



Llamapotamus said:


> The thing that bothers me about this "YEAH, YOU GO WORLD POLICE LOLOLOLOLOLOL" thing is that we've known Assad was your typical asshole dictator for at least 2 years now and haven't done much of anything. Guess what? Things are getting worse. Someone should take initiative at some point, and it looks as though it'll be economic failure #1 (USA) rather than economic failure #2 (Europe(except Germany(FUCK YEAH DEUTCHLAND))).



 What do you mean by "economic failure #1"? Europe may be in pretty bad shape, but the US economy is doing fairly well. It could be much better, but considering some of the limiting factors (Ex: Congress), It isn't all that bad.

 Btw, the Chinese economy should be failure #1, not the US. All of their official statistics are inflated by their manufacturing bubble. They're in for a world of shit (like Europe nowadays).



Llamapotamus said:


> FUCK YEAH DEUTSCHLAND



+1



Clayton said:


> This is very funny
> 
> Americans
> Are you aware that there was a satirical movie about your country titled Team America: *World Police*?
> ...



 It is a wonderful and entertaining movie. You should watch "Rubber".



ADF said:


> America is the empire of the day and all empires try to maintain their global influence through military might and meddling in other's affairs, like the British empire before and the empires before that. The fact that the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency post Bretton Woods system when the original criteria it was chosen by is no longer valid, is a testament to America's present dominant position. But like all empires these activities inevitably bankrupt the country, they try to delay the collapse through monetary debasement and expanding its means of forcing control on others; but the results are always the same. Maintaining the empire becomes unaffordable and it collapses. It's already unaffordable for America, they're printing and indebting themselves like crazy to maintain the status quo, but it will come to and end.
> 
> The only question is if it will be a violent and messy collapse, or like the British empire it is a controlled decline.



So, you think that the United States is in decline. For the most part, you are correct, but you have come to the incorrect conclusion of American decline based on flawed knowledge of the debt. I'll try to keep things succinct for the sake of space.

Nearly half of all annual federal expenditures are "entitlement" programs. These programs have been paid for through taxes since their inception. The problem is that the taxes meant to pay for these have been cut, creating a deficit. This deficit then accumulated over time into a pile of debt. This debt would be in the form of T-bonds (and such). Many of these bonds are then held by the social security trust fund. This part of the debt is a structural problem caused by lack of revenue. this can be solved by adjusting the tax code, and if this part of the debt actually becomes threatening, it can and will be promptly solved.

Medicare part D and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added to the deficit, and thus the debt. The debt caused by these things _is_ actually debt as you may think of it, a spending problem, as they were/are simply more spending. Both of the wars are for the most part done. Medicare part D remains and needs to be addressed, but it doesn't constitute much of a threat and will be addressed if it becomes one.

Here's something a bit more interesting. China is quite well-known for holding US debt, but the reasons why it does aren't really well known. While holding US debt does give china a bit of leverage over the US, that is simply a side-effect. 

Simply put, china is inherently unstable, and because of this, there is a LOT of capital flight from china to other, safer places. It just so happens that America's debt is one of the largest and safest places to put this capital, and as the situation in china deteriorates further throughout this decade, capital will continue to leave china, driving down the interest rate for US debt. It's pretty much an enabling situation that allows the US government to flail around recklessly as various factions in it try to score political points. 

Although we will continue to have and incur more debt for a time, it will likely be stabilized in the next decade, and probably even put into decline, as doing such a thing would be beneficial politically, and also because the economy will have recovered.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 31, 2013)

I wonder why chemical weapons were the limit. It's not like the other tens of thousands of causalities didn't suffer at all. Bullets and shrapnel don't make a death any more peaceful.
What I know for sure is that the UN inspectors are moving out of Syria today or tomorrow, and the Americans will attack shortly afterwards. The newspaper here claimed that the Americans have B2 bombers involved in the attack, so I'm eager to see those in action.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 31, 2013)

CynicalCirno said:


> I wonder why chemical weapons were the limit. It's not like the other tens of thousands of causalities didn't suffer at all. Bullets and shrapnel don't make a death any more peaceful.
> What I know for sure is that the UN inspectors are moving out of Syria today or tomorrow, and the Americans will attack shortly afterwards.


Simple, cause no one cares about a bunch of middle easterners getting killed, or the countless killings of civilians, or the fact that there's going to be decades of internal conflict no matter who wins, or the attrocities assad carried out on his people, or how the violence is starting to spill over into other countries, or the refugees leaving the country.  All people care about is one of two things, "america is playing world police" and "omg chemical warfare".

In short using the deaths of a million people and 4 million people having to leave their country just so someone can bitch at the country going in to stop it makes them a terrible person, and not giving a shit about the deaths of a million people until "omg chemical warfare" makes them a terrible person as well.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 31, 2013)

CynicalCirno said:


> I wonder why chemical weapons were the limit. It's not like the other tens of thousands of causalities didn't suffer at all. Bullets and shrapnel don't make a death any more peaceful.



Because it's the general consensus by most of the world that chemical weapons are cruel and unusual (because even compared to bullets and shrapnel, they are still especially terrible) and as such have resolved to ban there use via agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Geneva Protocol.

It also helps that they only people who use them anymore are complete assholes and dictators so it's kind of become the designated evil dictator weapon.


----------



## ADF (Aug 31, 2013)

Tiller said:


> So, you think that the United States is in decline. For the most part, you are correct, but you have come to the incorrect conclusion of American decline based on flawed knowledge of the debt. I'll try to keep things succinct for the sake of space.
> 
> Nearly half of all annual federal expenditures are "entitlement" programs. These programs have been paid for through taxes since their inception. The problem is that the taxes meant to pay for these have been cut, creating a deficit. This deficit then accumulated over time into a pile of debt. This debt would be in the form of T-bonds (and such). Many of these bonds are then held by the social security trust fund. This part of the debt is a structural problem caused by lack of revenue. this can be solved by adjusting the tax code, and if this part of the debt actually becomes threatening, it can and will be promptly solved.
> 
> ...



In Keynesianism they believe that the state can fuel economic growth through its deficit spending during downturns, making up for it in the recovery and boom period (which of course they didn't). So when operating under Keynesian economics you can judge the seriousness of a downturn by how loose state financial policy is. The Federal Reserve's base interest rate is 0.25%, which is a historical low. The US is in the largest economic crisis it has ever faced. GDP figures are meaningless when the state so openly manipulates them, the US government rewrote decades of economic history to manufacturer higher numbers, a blatant indication of how desperate they are. The fact that the Federal Reserve is now the biggest holder of US treasuries gives us two possibilities. Either the world is sick of lending America money and they're having to monetise debt to cover the shortfall, or the external money sources are simply not enough and debt monetisation is topping it up. Very serious either way.

Every debt ceiling debate is turned into a crisis and the proposed solution is to get rid of the debt ceiling, as if the ceiling and not the debt is a problem. Empires collapse because they cannot fund themselves, that it's unfunded entitlements totalling nearly double the entire worlds GDP combined rather than war (which is part of it); is irrelevant. It's the same cause, they're too big and too over extended and it's bankrupting them. They cannot simply tax their way out of the problem because even if taxes were enough, which they will not be as the liabilities exceeds global GDP, good luck taxing international corporations. 

Regardless of how China may manipulate their economics figures on paper; they've got massive industrial capacity, low debt and their interest rates are at 6%. They're a creditor nation, not a debtor nation like the US. That tells me they're a lot healthier, despite any other problems they may have. They've got the real wealth, the goods in demand, right now America is trying to pay its way in the world with paper and digital numbers and that will come to an end. The Roman Empire also tried to pay its way by debasing its currency, until it became worthless.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 31, 2013)

Seekrit said:


> The only logical solution is to somehow force Canada into taking action first.


Canadians don't start wars, we just end them when we're inevitably dragged into them.


Why hasn't USA learned anything about fucking with the middle east? You can't talk logic there, logic doesn't EXIST there, there is a bubble around the middle east that blocks out any logic. Why in the hell do you keep fucking with the middle east?


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 31, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> It also helps that they only people who use them [chemical weapons] anymore are complete assholes and dictators so it's kind of become the designated evil dictator weapon.



"As of 2012, only four nations are confirmed as having chemical weapons: the *United States*, Russia, North Korea and Syria."

In addition, US allies Israel, Japan and Taiwan are listed as "Probable" possessors of chemical weapons.


----------



## CrazyLee (Aug 31, 2013)

I keep reading that Obama has intel that Assad's military was the one who launched those chemical warheads. Some kind of intercepted communications or something.

Even so it doesn't make the idea of jumping into this quagmire (giggity) any more appealing.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 31, 2013)

CrazyLee said:


> I keep reading that Obama has intel that Assad's military was the one who launched those chemical warheads. Some kind of intercepted communications or something.
> 
> Even so it doesn't make the idea of jumping into this quagmire (giggity) any more appealing.



Especially as the "sure thing" intel that got the US into Iraq turned out to be anything but.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 31, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> "As of 2012, only four nations are confirmed as having chemical weapons: the *United States*, Russia, North Korea and Syria."
> 
> In addition, US allies Israel, Japan and Taiwan are listed as "Probable" possessors of chemical weapons.


Oh boy it's conspiracy theory hour.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 31, 2013)

The well-known conspiracy that is Wikipedia.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Aug 31, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> "As of 2012, only four nations are confirmed as having chemical weapons: the *United States*, Russia, North Korea and Syria."
> 
> In addition, US allies Israel, Japan and Taiwan are listed as "Probable" possessors of chemical weapons.



Huge difference between possessing and actually using them. Possessing chemical weapons could simply mean they are simply ceasing discovered chemical weapons and potentially preparing them for future disposal (as ordained by the aforementioned Chemical Weapons Convention), or utilizing them as a deterrent for potential aggressors. Even then simply possessing them is not forbidden, only producing them and actually using them.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 31, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Huge difference between possessing and actually using them. Possessing chemical weapons could simply mean they are simply ceasing discovered chemical weapons and potentially preparing them for future disposal (as ordained by the aforementioned Chemical Weapons Convention), or utilizing them as a deterrent for potential aggressors. Even then simply possessing them is not forbidden, only producing them and actually using them.



True. But as the article implies, chemical weapons are hardly in the exclusive employ / ownership of dictators.

And it should also be noted that during the Iran-Iraq War, a certain Donald Rumsfeld had no problem visiting Saddam Hussein and shaking hands with him while Saddam was launching chemical weapons at Iran "on a daily basis". In addition, the efforts by the Obama administration to get the UN to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria (by whom has still not been determined conclusively to date) contrast starkly with similar moves by Iran with Iraq over thirty years ago:


> Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. *The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution.* If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain. (emphasis added)



The moral of the story is that if you have friends in high places you're OK, but if you don't - you're screwed no matter what you do.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Aug 31, 2013)

When the press announced Obama would be holding a press conference in the rose garden, I was certain a strike would be commencing in the next 24 hours. However, Obama's deferring the decision to strike to congress or is at least requesting congressional approval. He has the option to attack whether or not they approve. I believe in both instances the US will likely attack, the scope, however will be considerably different based on congressional vote. Politicos around capital hill are already sounding off with notorious war hawk, Peter King, already claiming that by deferring to congress, Obama is abdicating 'responsibility,' but fuck that neocon bullshit. It's time that presidents started deferring more military action to congressional approval and we began limiting wartime powers.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 31, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> When the press announced Obama would be holding a press conference in the rose garden, I was certain a strike would be commencing in the next 24 hours. However, Obama's deferring the decision to strike to congress or is at least requesting congressional approval. He has the option to attack whether or not they approve. I believe in both instances the US will likely attack, the scope, however will be considerably different based on congressional vote. Politicos around capital hill are already sounding off with notorious war hawk, Peter King, already claiming that by deferring to congress, Obama is abdicating 'responsibility,' but fuck that neocon bullshit. It's *time that presidents started deferring more military action to congressional approval* and we began limiting wartime powers.



I believe that under the US Constitution only Congress has the right to declare war / initiate hostilities, so Obama is in fact _following_ (at least so far) the US Constitution. 

Not to mention that Obama initiating strikes against Syria off his own authority won't look very good compared to the UK putting the same measure to a vote by Parliament and Cameron abiding by the outcome (no strikes).


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 31, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> I believe that under the US Constitution only Congress has the right to declare war / initiate hostilities, so Obama is in fact _following_ (at least so far) the US Constitution.


*BZZT!  Wrong!  Any conflict that lasts longer than 60 days he has to get approval for.

He doesn't have to get congress' approval in this case if all he does is a short term airstrike against assad's forces.  If it lasts longer than 60 days then yes he does have to get congress' approval.


----------



## Mayfurr (Aug 31, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> *BZZT!  Wrong!  *Any conflict that lasts longer than 60 days he has to get approval for.*
> 
> He doesn't have to get congress' approval in this case if all he does is a short term airstrike against assad's forces.  If it lasts longer than 60 days then yes he does have to get congress' approval.



Citation please - as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says that _Congress_ - not the President - has the power to declare war. There's no mention of a "President can declare war as long as it's not for longer than 60 days" rule.

And even a "short term airstrike" is in fact *an act of war.* After all, wasn't a "short term airstrike" on 9/11 immediately described as an "act of war"? And wouldn't the US consider  a "short-term airstrike" by (say) North Korea as an act of war?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Citation please - as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says that _Congress_ - not the President - has the power to declare war. There's no mention of a "President can declare war as long as it's not for longer than 60 days" rule.
> 
> And even a "short term airstrike" is in fact *an act of war.* After all, wasn't a "short term airstrike" on 9/11 immediately described as an "act of war"? And wouldn't the US consider  a "short-term airstrike" by (say) North Korea as an act of war?


That's war.  The loophole is that the president can intervene in a "not" war and a "not" an act of war and then go ask congress to go to war.  The reason why it's not being used in this case is that it would piss the hell out of congress.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Citation please - as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says that _Congress_ - not the President - has the power to declare war. There's no mention of a "President can declare war as long as it's not for longer than 60 days" rule.
> 
> And even a "short term airstrike" is in fact *an act of war.* After all, wasn't a "short term airstrike" on 9/11 immediately described as an "act of war"? And wouldn't the US consider  a "short-term airstrike" by (say) North Korea as an act of war?



An act of war is not the same as a declaration. One may lead to the other but they aren't the same. 

Remember Obama ordered air strikes over Libya (how soon we forget) without congressional approval. Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan based on shakey intel that the facility was producing nerve gas and as a retaliation for the bombing of US embassies back in 1998. 

There's precedent here. As Commander-in-Chief Obama reserves the right to have the military conduct operations without congressional approval. Hence the whole "Zero Dark Thirty" deal.  As CF said though, if any operation lasts longer than 2 months, he has to answer to Congress regarding his reasoning, and could be an impeachable abuse of his powers.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Citation please - as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says that _Congress_ - not the President - has the power to declare war. There's no mention of a "President can declare war as long as it's not for longer than 60 days" rule.
> 
> And even a "short term airstrike" is in fact *an act of war.* After all, wasn't a "short term airstrike" on 9/11 immediately described as an "act of war"? And wouldn't the US consider  a "short-term airstrike" by (say) North Korea as an act of war?



War Powers act of 1973.

So it looks like the rebels have cut off Aleppo from the Syrian government again. I wonder if they will be able to take the besieged city after a year of fighting.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 8, 2013)

Just wait until your precious OBAMA sends drones to look in your fucking windows while you're at home. Just wait.

25years ago we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, no cash, and no hope.
NObama


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Sep 8, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Just wait until your precious OBAMA sends drones to look in your fucking windows while you're at home. Just wait.
> 
> 25years ago we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, no cash, and no hope.
> NObama



25 years ago we didn't have the internet and Pokemon so I say it's an even trade.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 8, 2013)

We have to kill people in Syria with bombs so that Assad will only kill people in Syria with bombs! #MurrikanLogic


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 8, 2013)

I believe if we actually had the proof we say we do, that Assad gassed his own people, then we wouldn't even be bickering. America wouldn't be the only force threatening Syria. The UN would have no other choice but to act. Any use of chemical weapons would be against Geneva protocol which would obligate the United Nations to act post haste, if the proof were there. Now keep this in mind, so far there are American, Chinese, and Russian forces all waiting in the Syrian gulf. Just imagine the worst scenario where we act, then Russia and China move against us. Russia is badass to begin with, then you've got China who is allied with North Korea. North Korea may be a shitty country and behind technologically but they have the largest standing military in the world and if China wanted to they have the resources to make N. Korea a huge player in this possible war. This is all worst case scenario but it could very well happen. 

Another option that should be looked at is if the UN had the proof of the use of chemical weapons used then they would be stepping forward not the US. There's a chance that all this bickering is just a huge cover so that once all their forces are in place they'll stop the bluff, come together and say, "Ok Syria, it's time to let us come in and do what we gotta do. OR ELSE." Now that's a huge "what if" but it is an option. But it'll probably just be one huge pissing match, forcing us into another war we can't afford and don't want but that doesn't seem to matter to our illustrious president. I haven't been able to wrap my mind around why Obama wants to help the same people we're fighting in Afghanistan.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 8, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> I believe if we actually had the proof we say we do, that Assad gassed his own people, then we wouldn't even be bickering. America wouldn't be the only force threatening Syria. *The UN would have no other choice but to act. *



Haha, you are hilarious.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 8, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Haha, you are hilarious.



I don't see what you find funny. The use of chemical weapons are strictly forbidden under UN protocols and if they are used the UN should be stepping forward, not just the US. Is it that you think the UN would ignore this and not act? Maybe you could clarify what it is you find funny about this.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 8, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> I don't see what you find funny. The use of chemical weapons are strictly forbidden under UN protocols and if they are used the UN should be stepping forward, not just the US. Is it that you think the UN would ignore this and not act? Maybe you could clarify what it is you find funny about this.


The reason why he was laughing is that the UN militarily is a joke.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 8, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> The reason why he was laughing is that the UN militarily is a joke.



I understand how small their military is comparatively speaking but if they believe/enforce their own laws then more countries should be involved than just the US. There should be an equal military force from every nation in the UN. I don't see why that's so much to ask. Why are we the first ones to jump on the war wagon? Why are we going in to help the al qaeda backed rebels to fight Syrian military. Those are the people we've been fighting since 2001, and we armed and trained those bastards before that.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 9, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> I believe if we actually had the proof we say we do, that Assad gassed his own people, then we wouldn't even be bickering. America wouldn't be the only force threatening Syria. The UN would have no other choice but to act.



And... do what, exactly? 

Invade Syria and oust Assad like what was done in Iraq and Saddam, or like in Afghanistan like the Taliban? Even with UN backing Afghanistan has not exactly been a stunning success...

Arm the rebels? Some of the rebels aren't exactly angels either, and Al-Qaeda are just as happy to see Assad gone as the US is.

I can't see for the life of me what kind of external intervention from the UN or anyone else wouldn't make the existing situation worse.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 9, 2013)

So the US Government is hailing France and cheering them on about how awesome they are and how glad they are to be with their "oldest allies".

>completely fucking forgetting how they treated the "cowardly cheese-eating surrender monkeys" due to their surrender in WW2 and their refusal to enter Iraq


----------



## Ranguvar (Sep 9, 2013)

Gibby said:


> >completely fucking forgetting how they treated the "cowardly cheese-eating surrender monkeys" due to their surrender in WW2 and their refusal to enter Iraq


I still call em' freedom fries.


----------



## ADF (Sep 9, 2013)

It's ridiculous how big the divide between the political elite and population are. Polls say whether British or American; the majority are against another war. Yet the people at the top are throwing tantrums about parliament voting no, Cameron having the absurd cheek of suggesting voting again so he could get the answer he wanted. He's been hanging around Euro MPs too much...

RT did an article on it. The people at the top are acting like blood thirsty maniacs while the rest of society just wants to stay out of it.

I say take a page out of Gerald Celente's book. You want to go to war so badly? Send your own money and your own family.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 9, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> And... do what, exactly?
> 
> Invade Syria and oust Assad like what was done in Iraq and Saddam, or like in Afghanistan like the Taliban? Even with UN backing Afghanistan has not exactly been a stunning success...
> 
> ...



Maybe I haven't made myself clear, I don't think I have. I don't think any of this is a good thing. No good can come from any intervention from anyone. I just don't think our government is telling us the truth. Because if they were then we wouldn't be the only ones acting. Basically something doesn't smell right.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 9, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> Maybe I haven't made myself clear, I don't think I have. I don't think any of this is a good thing. No good can come from any intervention from anyone. I just don't think our government is telling us the truth. Because if they were then we wouldn't be the only ones acting. Basically something doesn't smell right.



Well hell even Congress isn't completely on board with this. Supposedly those who have seen the classified info about Syria and the attacks are even _more_ skeptical that Assad is behind it all.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 9, 2013)

They are gonna announce the new iPhone tomorrow!!!
What is this "Syria" you speak of?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 9, 2013)

ADF said:


> It's ridiculous how big the divide between the political elite and population are. Polls say whether British or American; the majority are against another war. Yet the people at the top are throwing tantrums about parliament voting no, Cameron having the absurd cheek of suggesting voting again so he could get the answer he wanted. He's been hanging around Euro MPs too much...
> 
> RT did an article on it. The people at the top are acting like blood thirsty maniacs while the rest of society just wants to stay out of it.
> 
> I say take a page out of Gerald Celente's book. You want to go to war so badly? Send your own money and your own family.


Easy politically countries need a war every few odd years to justify their military spending.  While I do support a strike on the basis of assad's a fucking asshole, I do recognize that the reason why politicians are pushing for it is for completely different reasons.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Sep 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> They are gonna announce the new iPhone tomorrow!!!
> What is this "Syria" you speak of?



OOO! OOO! IS IT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE LAST IPHONE EXCEPT WITH ONE COMPLETELY INDISTINGUISHABLE, ULTIMATELY NEGLIGIBLE DIFFERENCE!?!


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Sep 9, 2013)

I don't understand why people try to quarrel about this, there's no win either way.
US goes in = gets shit for sticking their noses in other people's business.
US doesn't go in = gets shit for not helping a country.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 9, 2013)

I don't see why whether the US gets shit from others or not is where winning or losing is defined.

I see that happening a lot all over.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 9, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I don't see why whether the US gets shit from others or not is where winning or losing is defined.
> 
> I see that happening a lot all over.


Cause for some reason people like to think waving their finger at the usa for attacking another country somehow is a victory, but in reality history is written by the winners.  It's pretty much a inevitability at this point that the usa is eventually going to attack the syria loyalists and the usa is going to win against them.  In the immortal words of Sean Connery, "Losers go home and whine about their best.  Winners go home and fuck the prom queen", and oh boy is the usa going to be riding the prom queen hard after they go in against syria.

My money is on the inevitable.  The usa goes in, kicks syria loyalist's asses, the country has decades of internal conflict due to the new government not being able to keep peace in their country, history gets whitewashed again to make the usa seem as though a gallant knight riding in to save the day, everyone that thinks the war wasn't justified get fucking steamrolled by the history books by people going "Oh no those peace loving hippies didn't want to save the children from assad gassing them USAnationalanthem.sfx (usa flag fades in behind picture of president) (clip of bald eagle flying) (fade to black)" like always.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 9, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> OOO! OOO! IS IT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE LAST IPHONE EXCEPT WITH ONE COMPLETELY INDISTINGUISHABLE, ULTIMATELY NEGLIGIBLE DIFFERENCE!?!



And yet when they do announce it tomorrow it will be THE thing to talk about. I don't think we will see a lot about Syria on the front pages of newspapers the day after the announcement...


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Sep 9, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I don't see why whether the US gets shit from others or not is where winning or losing is defined.
> 
> I see that happening a lot all over.



Because there's no other clear-cut definition of "victory". We throw Assad out of power? Some other asshole takes hold in the power vacuum making things worse or just as bad. We do nothing? Assad continues to butcher his people and things continue to get worse.

People want a storyline, more specifically a storyline that won't depress everyone. It's simply people trying to find some sort of silver lining where none exists.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 9, 2013)

ADF said:


> It's ridiculous how big the divide between the political elite and population are. Polls say whether British or American; the majority are against another war. Yet the people at the top are throwing tantrums about parliament voting no, Cameron having the absurd cheek of suggesting voting again so he could get the answer he wanted. He's been hanging around Euro MPs too much...


Because if there's one thing the EU is known for, it's being warlike. (???????)


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 9, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Because if there's one thing the EU is known for, it's being warlike. (???????)


Actually the number of conflicts that the countries that are a part of the EU have been involved with pretty much makes the statement of "isolationist" one of the bigger lies politically this last few decades.  And that the justification for the claims of the countries that are a part of the EU are "peaceful" is cherry picking by going, "well sweden hasn't been in any conflicts so therefore ALL of the EU is peaceful", when in reality if you add up the number of conflicts that all countries that are a part of the EU in the last two decades vs the number of conflicts the usa has been a part of the last two decades they're almost as bad as us.

In short:  I like to believe minotaurs exist and live in the EU, cause they've been on the toilet for decades cause that's a lot of bullshit spewing out of the EU :V

Hey I know a fun drinking game folks that will have you dead in a second:  Take a shot for every time a country that is a part of the EU has been involved in a conflict.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Sep 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Actually the number of conflicts that the countries that are a part of the EU have been involved with pretty much makes the statement of "isolationist" one of the bigger lies politically this last few decades.  And that the justification for the claims of the countries that are a part of the EU are "peaceful" is cherry picking by going, "well sweden hasn't been in any conflicts so therefore ALL of the EU is peaceful", when in reality if you add up the number of conflicts that all countries that are a part of the EU in the last two decades vs the number of conflicts the usa has been a part of the last two decades they're almost as bad as us.
> 
> In short:  I like to believe minotaurs exist and live in the EU, cause they've been on the toilet for decades cause that's a lot of bullshit spewing out of the EU :V
> 
> Hey I know a fun drinking game folks that will have you dead in a second:  Take a shot for every time a country that is a part of the EU has been involved in a conflict.


And, in the last decade, how many of those conflicts have NOT been started by the US with? You know, how many of those conflicts were not because of "we are allied with the USA, we have to help them"?
Still think that it would end up as "almost as bad as the US"?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2013)

When is a war not a war? When it's "war".


----------



## ADF (Sep 10, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Because if there's one thing the EU is known for, it's being warlike. (???????)



Putting aside the EU's military ambitions... (they want to be the next US, that requires a massive army to impose their agenda on the world)

I was referencing the EU's tendency to disregard the result of the democratic process and demand that the vote be held again, so they can get the answer they want this time. Something I'm accusing Cameron of imitating for wanting another vote on Syria when he didn't get the nod for war he wanted.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 10, 2013)

Developments underway.  Russia is proposing a plan for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons into international hands so they can be destroyed, which Syria has agreed to, in the hopes of avoiding a U.S. military strike.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 10, 2013)

ADF said:


> Putting aside the EU's military ambitions... (they want to be the next US, that requires a massive army to impose their agenda on the world)


ADF, seriously, please stop reading the Daily Mail. It's better for your brain.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 10, 2013)

Yknow you Americans can come run here for safety and live with me in exchange for doing shit for me.


----------



## ADF (Sep 10, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> ADF, seriously, please stop reading the Daily Mail. It's better for your brain.



I don't read the daily mail or any tabloid newspaper.

The EU has been open about building an army composed of member states for quite some time now. The goal of the European Union is to build a new state out of European countries, a unified army is part of that integration process. They've even got their own coat of arms so it's hardly top secret, but the EU is a work in progress and just because they're not sending an EU army out to do their bidding yet doesn't mean that isn't the plan. As of now armies remain separate but cooperate for European level objectives.

I can only assume you think anyone talking about the building of the EU super state reads too many tabloids, as opposed to actually paying attention to what the EU gets up to.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2013)

ADF said:


> I don't read the daily mail or any tabloid newspaper.
> 
> The EU has been open about building an army composed of member states for quite some time now. The goal of the European Union is to build a new state out of European countries, a unified army is part of that integration process. They've even got their own coat of arms so it's hardly top secret, but the EU is a work in progress and just because they're not sending an EU army out to do their bidding yet doesn't mean that isn't the plan. As of now armies remain separate but cooperate for European level objectives.
> 
> I can only assume you think anyone talking about the building of the EU super state reads too many tabloids, as opposed to actually paying attention to what the EU gets up to.


So a United States of Europe?  Considering how most of the eu's recovering from the recession is due to france and germany and that all it would take is for one of the countries that use the euro(idunno greece or such) to fail economically to spiral europe economically downwards and the only way to fix it would be surprise more power to the eu and taking away power from individual countries or your country is fucked I would have to say your theory ADF is actually pretty sound.


Mayfurr said:


> When is a war not a war? When it's "war".


I think everyone here knows it's a war, they're just not calling it politically to try and find a loophole.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 10, 2013)

ADF said:


> I don't read the daily mail or any tabloid newspaper.


Your conspiracy theories sure sound like they're right out of them.

Even though the yellow press and other rancid racists like UKIP like to peddle that crap to get paranoid wingnuts buying their stuff or voting for them, the idea of nefarious technocrats in the new Babel called Brussels plotting to magically consolidate one of the most diverse geographic regions on Earth into one big Oceania is and shall remain a risible myth.

So what if there are proposals for a unified European military? Can't hurt to muster a united front in a battlezone in terms of communications and logistics. Not that this matters, as these proposals won't go anywhere as the military still occupies a special position in our cultures; the individual states aren't likely to relinquish control of national forces anytime soon.


----------



## ADF (Sep 10, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Your conspiracy theories sure sound like they're right out of them.
> 
> Even though the yellow press and other rancid racists like UKIP like to peddle that crap to get paranoid wingnuts buying their stuff or voting for them, the idea of nefarious technocrats in the new Babel called Brussels plotting to magically consolidate one of the most diverse geographic regions on Earth into one big Oceania is and shall remain a risible myth.
> 
> So what if there are proposals for a unified European military? Can't hurt to muster a united front in a battlezone in terms of communications and logistics. Not that this matters, as these proposals won't go anywhere as the military still occupies a special position in our cultures; the individual states aren't likely to relinquish control of national forces anytime soon.



Why does simply paying attention to what the EU does make me a conspiracy theorist and a daily mail reader?

Is it even worth having a discussion and risking derailing this thread when you just pretend what the EU does openly, publicly, isn't happening?


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 10, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Yknow you Americans can come run here for safety and live with me in exchange for doing shit for me.



Well thanks! Im quiet, I clean quite thoroughly and am good with my hands. Put me to work! Then hide me under your bed.


----------

