Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Chemical weapon attack in Syria

598 replies to this topic
Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#451

Posted 03 September 2013 - 10:34 PM

QUOTE (Nipperkins @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 22:30)
Yugoslavia was the only only country that liberated itself from Germany.

Hitler was more merciful than Stalin. My point stands.

orbitalraindrops
  • orbitalraindrops

    Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2012
  • None

#452

Posted 03 September 2013 - 10:34 PM

I can see the logic behind you saying that if one nation wants to subjugate another then they need to be utterly ruthless. However as far as I'm aware any form of action against Syria will be classed as "Liberation" not subjugation. I doubt we intend to conquer and subdue the Syrian people. In fact I think the main reason for any involvement would be to allow the Syrian populace to go about there daily lives without being gassed and to topple a tyrant who is a possible threat to the West. The methods you suggest would be effective if we intended to gain territory and claim resources however I don't think any military intervention would be done for such reasons. In this day and age no nation can do that and be justified in the eyes of the U.N. It has to be humane. It has to be consented to. It must be done for the biggest possible gains and the least possible losses.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#453

Posted 03 September 2013 - 10:51 PM

http://www.c-span.or...e-Video/C-SPAN/

Live.

I have a newfound disdain for Kerry.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Mauritius

#454

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:37 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 04 September 2013 - 03:51 AM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 07:18)
QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Monday, Sep 2 2013, 19:30)
@sivispacem: I wonder what your view on US politics is, and how according to you these "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" originated in US policy, and some examples of them. Because I am deeply skeptical about any moral motivation in US policy.

I think you misunderstand me. I never claimed categorically that the US stood for these values, though I'm sure that many Americans would see themselves as such. I was referring more generally to nations which pride themselves on upholding fundamental rights of this nature, and the dichotomy of the public's inability to see that these concepts transcend national boundaries. You can't really be a champion of "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" if you believe your ability to uphold them extends no further than your own borders.

I think part of upholding "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" is upholding international law and not being an outlaw state. That brings me to some other statements of you.
QUOTE
So, one one hand you have a flagrant violation of international law, and on the other a flagrant violation of international law. Worth pointing out to additional things here-interventions aren't necessarily illegal if the Security Council doesn't vote for them as nations have a right to conduct military action to defend their interests regardless)

QUOTE
Neither a unilateral or multilateral attack under any defined set of circumstances is against international law; the only decision of whether a military action violates law comes after the action and on agreement; such is the way the system works.

The UN Charter states that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42," which detail the preferred "measures not involving the use of armed force" and permit the Security Council to take further action if it finds such measures inadequate. The only exception is Article 51, which permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Apart from these exceptions, member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."
QUOTE
BBC article on Rwandan genocide. As a brief summary, after the shooting down of an aircraft carrying moderate Hutu President Habyarimana, either by a Tutsi rebel group or by extremist Hutu elements (both theories have a great deal of traction), the Hutu-majority government effectively sponsored the mass murder of nearly 1 million ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu citizens
Genocide Watch article on the Bosnian genocide. Strong parallels with Syria in that it involved a military force receiving external support from a foreign power conducting crimes against humanity during an internal conflict amounting to a civil war.

Could foreign intervention prevented genocide in Rwanda? Possibly not, but it could certainly have limited it dramatically. Could foreign intervention have prevented genocide in Bosnia? Quite probably. Are the circumstances the same here? Not entirely, but in terms of civilian casualties I doubt a punitive strike against targets of strategic importance and the WMD-delivery capability of the Syria government (air force and rocket/ballistic missile forces) would in the long run be any more harmful than the net result of their continued use. Nice to see you missing my point as well, which was the apparent irony of people being very aware of infractions against what they perceive to be inalienable rights at home yet feeling compelled to wash their hands of any involvement protecting the same rights abroad because of the synthetic divisions of nationality and culture. But I can see that went well over several people's heads.

Ironically genocide in Rwanda could've been prevented by a lack of a foreign intervention. The Genocide was caused by a power struggle between two tribes that lived in a country that had borders set by western countries, and division of power to each tribe set by western countries.

And calling the war in Kosovo a genocide is an insult to Holocaust survivors and casualties. 2000 deaths before the bombing is the standard estimate.

Most casualties were after the bombing. So it's a very bad example to defend a Syrian invasion with.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#455

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:38 PM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:51)
http://www.c-span.or...e-Video/C-SPAN/

Live.

I have a newfound disdain for Kerry.

Yeah, the guy's a real scumbag. Full of empty political talk and manipulation of facts. And he's so obvious. Anyone with half of brain can read him like an open book.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#456

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:56 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:38)
QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:51)
http://www.c-span.or...e-Video/C-SPAN/

Live.

I have a newfound disdain for Kerry.

Yeah, the guy's a real scumbag. Full of empty political talk and manipulation of facts. And he's so obvious. Anyone with half of brain can read him like an open book.

He also can't help but contradict himself. First he keeps rambling about dead children, and how he can't imagine anyone could allow such horrors on children, only to later nullify that as a reason to vote pro intervention, by saying that strikes are only to make clear that governments who use chemical weaponry will face punishment, and won't further the civil war in any way shape or form.

The more that clown yells, the weaker the argument pro-syria-strike gets.

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    -

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#457

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:58 PM

@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

Edward-Is-A-Flunky45
  • Edward-Is-A-Flunky45

    Frazy as Cruck

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2012

#458

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:05 AM

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 23:58)
@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

United Nations= USA's command.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Mauritius

#459

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:08 AM

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 23:58)
@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

I don't think it's in the interest of the world for outlaw states like the United States to terrorize the world in order for them to further their interests.

It's interesting how you typify international law and the UN as 'an impotent facade', when it should be the spine of international justice, which it indeed isn't because the biggest source of terrorism in the world, US foreign policy, is indifferent to it.

Rown
  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#460

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:21 AM

Part of me is surprised this issue has gotten so much armchair debate (mine is a blue recliner, something like a la-z-boy). What I feel Obama wants to do is something akin to what was already done in Libya and what Clinton did during the Balkan conflicts (and what he failed to do during Rwanda). As far as military actions go... it's pretty limited.

I do wish the Administration was more open with the case for action, and explaining exactly what happened, though, the usage of chemical weapons or other "WMDs" in a civilian area and ostensibly against a largely civilian population shouldn't go without remark and without response. I also wish the Administration would wait for a vote on a UN resolution. That way we could at least say the process happened and that we had a modicum of faith in international institutions.

But at the end of the day I do not oppose the limited military action, that as I understand it, would be focused on disabling Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. I also don't think that Congress will end up opposing it barring a revolt in the House of Representatives.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#461

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:35 AM

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 19:08)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 23:58)
@gtaxpert, But the United Nations and specifically it's security council is flawed anyways, because of the ability to veto resolutions. Ultimately it doesn't have the ability, and this has been proven numerous times throughout it's history, to effectively act with any real authority on world affairs. Unilateral actions are still the main way of resolving issues, and that's pretty much become accepted to a large degree, certainly by the major powers in the world anyways. It's nothing more than an impotent facade.

I don't think it's in the interest of the world for outlaw states like the United States to terrorize the world in order for them to further their interests.

It's interesting how you typify international law and the UN as 'an impotent facade', when it should be the spine of international justice, which it indeed isn't because the biggest source of terrorism in the world, US foreign policy, is indifferent to it.

How things should work is irrelevant to reality. The idea that the current protocol of the UN Security Council has any real capacity to prevent mass human suffering is a Utopian fantasy. Though I can't necessarily agree with your theory that the US is the largest source of global terrorism, the very sentiment that the world isn't properly protected from the US kinda confirms that the UN Security Council is useless no?

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Mauritius

#462

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:44 AM

QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:35)
How things should work is irrelevant to reality.

I hope you do not seriously mean this.
QUOTE
the very sentiment that the world isn't properly protected from the US kinda confirms that the UN Security Council is useless no?

Maybe it would be more useful if the most powerful country in the world, the United States, would stop their illegal terror in the Middle East for their oil interests and would start abiding international law.

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#463

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:54 AM

QUOTE (Rown @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 20:21)
Part of me is surprised this issue has gotten so much armchair debate (mine is a blue recliner, something like a la-z-boy). What I feel Obama wants to do is something akin to what was already done in Libya and what Clinton did during the Balkan conflicts (and what he failed to do during Rwanda). As far as military actions go... it's pretty limited.

I do wish the Administration was more open with the case for action, and explaining exactly what happened, though, the usage of chemical weapons or other "WMDs" in a civilian area and ostensibly against a largely civilian population shouldn't go without remark and without response. I also wish the Administration would wait for a vote on a UN resolution. That way we could at least say the process happened and that we had a modicum of faith in international institutions.

But at the end of the day I do not oppose the limited military action, that as I understand it, would be focused on disabling Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. I also don't think that Congress will end up opposing it barring a revolt in the House of Representatives.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Congress is going to approve this?

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#464

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:10 AM

QUOTE

United Nations= USA's command.

Really? Because if that were true we'd have a UN authorization to attack Syria right now.

QUOTE
He also can't help but contradict himself. First he keeps rambling about dead children, and how he can't imagine anyone could allow such horrors on children, only to later nullify that as a reason to vote pro intervention, by saying that strikes are only to make clear that governments who use chemical weaponry will face punishment, and won't further the civil war in any way shape or form.

The more that clown yells, the weaker the argument pro-syria-strike gets.

What? How does that even remotely contradict anything? He's giving two different reasons to support his opinion to strike Syria. If I said I support legalizing Marijuana and give the two following reasons -

1) the government could regulate and tax it
2) children would find it harder to acquire marijuana since it would be taken off the streets and into the public market

Am I contradicting myself? No, I'm providing two reasons to support one thing.

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#465

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:26 AM

If the US does do an airstrike, what's the earliest do you think it'll happen? Next week?

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Mauritius

#466

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:29 AM

QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 02:26)
If the US does do an airstrike, what's the earliest do you think it'll happen? Next week?

Only the people in charge in the US can give you an estimate for that.

The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    Don't Mind Me...

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2013
  • United-States

#467

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:37 AM

Over 90% of the citizens do not want a strike or war against Syria. Damn near all the House of Representatives do. Know why? They aren't the ones that will be going to die overseas. They get to sit back and watch as the world crumbles around them and they continue.

Also, Obama wants to help out Syria? If he really cared, he would have done something a LONG time ago. And he's going to help out the citizens by bombing the country and inevitably killing more citizens. Real productive there, Mr. President.

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#468

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:38 AM

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 22:29)
QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 02:26)
If the US does do an airstrike, what's the earliest do you think it'll happen? Next week?

Only the people in charge in the US can give you an estimate for that.

They're unfortunately not giving me answers. There's no timetable on any news. I did just read that they're testing blood/hair to see cause of death and that will take 3 weeks.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    the night we called it a day

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Mauritius

#469

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:42 AM

QUOTE (The Pizza Delivery Guy @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 02:37)
Over 90% of the citizens do not want a strike or war against Syria. Damn near all the House of Representatives do. Know why? They aren't the ones that will be going to die overseas. They get to sit back and watch as the world crumbles around them and they continue.

True. But more than 90% of the population isn't going there either now are they?

The reason they have such a different opinion than the population is because the amount of money they get for a campaign is decided on the basis of how much their ideas coincide with corporate interest. The reason they support bombing Syria is because it is in corporate interest. The Middle East needs to be politically controlled because of oil.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#470

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:53 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 03:10)
QUOTE

United Nations= USA's command.

Really? Because if that were true we'd have a UN authorization to attack Syria right now.

QUOTE
He also can't help but contradict himself. First he keeps rambling about dead children, and how he can't imagine anyone could allow such horrors on children, only to later nullify that as a reason to vote pro intervention, by saying that strikes are only to make clear that governments who use chemical weaponry will face punishment, and won't further the civil war in any way shape or form.

The more that clown yells, the weaker the argument pro-syria-strike gets.

What? How does that even remotely contradict anything? He's giving two different reasons to support his opinion to strike Syria. If I said I support legalizing Marijuana and give the two following reasons -

1) the government could regulate and tax it
2) children would find it harder to acquire marijuana since it would be taken off the streets and into the public market

Am I contradicting myself? No, I'm providing two reasons to support one thing.

First he says what comes down to 'Do it for the childeren', only to later say what comes down to 'Our strikes won't help the childeren'.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#471

Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:10 AM

QUOTE

First he says what comes down to 'Do it for the childeren', only to later say what comes down to 'Our strikes won't help the childeren'.

Alright go ahead and not post anything substantive and just pull sh*t out of the sky in a veiled attempt to justify your continued nonsensical postings.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#472

Posted 04 September 2013 - 07:17 AM

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:37)
I think part of upholding "values of freedom, democracy, liberty and security" is upholding international law and not being an outlaw state. That brings me to some other statements of you.

The UN Charter states that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42," which detail the preferred "measures not involving the use of armed force" and permit the Security Council to take further action if it finds such measures inadequate. The only exception is Article 51, which permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Apart from these exceptions, member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

International law is fundamentally governed by self-interest, though- which means it is inherently flawed. Multilateral military engagements are all well and good as long as the UN Security Council rubber-stamps them, but of course that isn't applicable if it is in the interest of one of the nations with a veto to reject an intervention, regardless of circumstance. Similarly, as I pointed out to GTAVanja, acts are only actually illegal under international law if they're decided to be illegal under international law. Numerous acts which appear illegal in the context of written international law have had no action taken against them- take for instance the complains the FR Yugoslavia made against NATO in the wake of the 1999 bombing of Belgrade- because of the complexity of requirements for cases to actually be examined. You also seem to forget that there have been at least two occasions so far in the conflict when NATO Article 4 has been invoked by Turkey in response to deliberate military attacks against Turkish soil conducted by Syrian forces. Plain and simple, they're both examples of armed attack, and given the current provisions of the UNSC NATO would have been within their power to continue military operations until the perceived threat to Turkish sovereignty was entirely eliminated- as you sure as hell wouldn't have seen "the Security Council [take] measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:37)
Ironically genocide in Rwanda could've been prevented by a lack of a foreign intervention. The Genocide was caused by a power struggle between two tribes that lived in a country that had borders set by western countries, and division of power to each tribe set by western countries.

That's a pretty tenuous claim which ignores the fact that both the German and Belgian colonisation of Rwanda did little more than maintain the established status quo between ethnic Tutsi and Hutu tribes.

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 00:37)
And calling the war in Kosovo a genocide is an insult to Holocaust survivors and casualties. 2000 deaths before the bombing is the standard estimate.

I never referred to the Kosovo war as genocide. I referred to the Bosnian war as genocide, because it was. Or does government-sanctioned ethnic cleansing resulting in the killing of at least 10,000, and expulsion of around 30,000, individuals based solely on their religious and ethnic identity not meet whatever arbitrary definition of genocide you've decided to apply in this case?

John The Grudge
  • John The Grudge

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Scotland

#473

Posted 04 September 2013 - 07:30 AM

Surely military action by the USA in Syria would result in the death of more innocent people than what the chemical attacks caused. I'm no expert but their "precision strikes" probably take out entire city blocks. It's absurd that we're supposed to buy into all this nonsense about justice. Our governments have shown that they cannot be trusted whenever they suggest military action abroad. The Syrians are better off without our involvement.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#474

Posted 04 September 2013 - 08:42 AM Edited by sivispacem, 04 September 2013 - 08:45 AM.

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 08:30)
Surely military action by the USA in Syria would result in the death of more innocent people than what the chemical attacks caused.  I'm no expert but their "precision strikes" probably take out entire city blocks.  It's absurd that we're supposed to buy into all this nonsense about justice.  Our governments have shown that they cannot be trusted whenever they suggest military action abroad.  The Syrians are better off without our involvement.

I'm unsure of the logic behind this statement. If you look at the two recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have to a greater or lesser extent been internal conflicts, total civilian casualties attributed to foreign military action have been between 15% and 25% depending on sources. Civilian casualties as a result of military intervention in Libya were even lower than this according to most estimates. Based on the figures from the last comparable intervention- Libya-civilians were about ten times as likely to be killed by the actions of the Libyan military than by foreign military strikes in the time during which the no-fly-zone was in force. I would be keen to see you quantify your assertion that foreign intervention would cause more collateral damage than the~3000 casualties resulting from both actual and reported chemical weapon attacks in the last year. Especially given that that figure is approximately one sixth of total civilian casualties in the entire twelve year military deployment of ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including those killed by the Afghan army, police, ISAF and insurgents.

Rown
  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#475

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:09 AM

QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 18:54)
QUOTE (Rown @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 20:21)
Part of me is surprised this issue has gotten so much armchair debate (mine is a blue recliner, something like a la-z-boy). What I feel Obama wants to do is something akin to what was already done in Libya and what Clinton did during the Balkan conflicts (and what he failed to do during Rwanda). As far as military actions go... it's pretty limited.

I do wish the Administration was more open with the case for action, and explaining exactly what happened, though, the usage of chemical weapons or other "WMDs" in a civilian area and ostensibly against a largely civilian population shouldn't go without remark and without response. I also wish the Administration would wait for a vote on a UN resolution. That way we could at least say the process happened and that we had a modicum of faith in international institutions.

But at the end of the day I do not oppose the limited military action, that as I understand it, would be focused on disabling Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. I also don't think that Congress will end up opposing it barring a revolt in the House of Representatives.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Congress is going to approve this?

I think so, yes. The biggest obstacle I see is in the House of Representatives. The Tea Party members are pretty anti-interventionist. If the leadership can rein them in they'll pass it, if not there's a slight chance it could be used to topple Boehner in favor of Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader, but that's so remote it wouldn't be worth mentioning if it weren't 4 AM here and my textual inhibition hadn't gone to bed without me. flailing cock hammers in a vagina storm, it's 4 AM. I'm going to bed.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#476

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (Irviding)
Alright go ahead and not post anything substantive and just pull sh*t out of the sky in a veiled attempt to justify your continued nonsensical postings.

There you go again, you seem to be unable to answer without resorting to personal attacks. Did you even watch the Congressional hearing about Syria? At first Kerry was playing the 'moral obligation' card talking about the children , just to later nullify that statement by making clear that US intervention won't bring the civil war closer to an end, and that it only is to show Assad and the world, or more specifically North-Korea, Hezbollah and Iran that the usage of chemical weapons doesn't go unpunished and has severe consequences.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#477

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:21 AM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 12:15)
QUOTE (Irviding)
Alright go ahead and not post anything substantive and just pull sh*t out of the sky in a veiled attempt to justify your continued nonsensical postings.

There you go again, you seem to be unable to answer without resorting to personal attacks. Did you even watch the Congressional hearing about Syria? At first Kerry was playing the 'moral obligation' card talking about the children , just to later nullify that statement by making clear that US intervention won't bring the civil war closer to an end, and that it only is to show Assad and the world, or more specifically North-Korea, Hezbollah and Iran that the usage of chemical weapons doesn't go unpunished and has severe consequences.

You are aware that those two statements aren't actually contradictory, aren't you? I'd hope that was just an oversight on your part and not a deliberate attempt to create straw men from the arguments of someone who isn't here to clarify their statements.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#478

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:39 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 12:21)
You are aware that those two statements aren't actually contradictory, aren't you? I'd hope that was just an oversight on your part and not a deliberate attempt to create straw men from the arguments of someone who isn't here to clarify their statements.

Affirmative, that was a slip on my side, note that I didn't go further on about it being contradictory for obvious reasons. I was just recapping, if you will, a part of his 'speech' that stood out to me.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#479

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:45 PM

This whole situation is ridiculous. So the international community doesn't care that Assad was killing thousands of his own people. No one did. But then Obama goes to say "well, if he uses chemical weapons, that's a red flag". And lo and behold that's exactly what happened a week later. No one said a damn thing when Israel did it. It's like a script to a terrible political thriller. Who's stupid enough to buy into this sh*t?

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • None

#480

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

@GTAvanja

If it helps, polls illustrate it's only the minority who are brainless and susceptible enough to accept Obama's bollocks.

I only feel for the US Navy who are employed to follow his tyrannous orders.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users