Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Chemical weapon attack in Syria

598 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#481

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 14:45)
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?

Two things-Obama made the red flag comment months, perhaps up to a year ago, and when the f*ck did Israel use chemical weapons?

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#482

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:24 PM Edited by GTAvanja, 04 September 2013 - 02:34 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:10)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 14:45)
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?

Two things-Obama made the red flag comment months, perhaps up to a year ago, and when the f*ck did Israel use chemical weapons?

1. Oh for f*ck sake you boring man, it's a figure of speech.
2. They used white phosphorus as a weapon, not just to provide smoke cover for their troops.
3. Oh, and also Iraq used chemical weapons in the 80's (materials were provided by the US under Regan administration) against Iran. No one cared then.
4. Because you're so boring and predictable it's easy to know what you're going to say next. So don't bother. Spare yourself the energy and spare me your borefest.

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#483

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:48 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 15:24)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:10)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 14:45)
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?

Two things-Obama made the red flag comment months, perhaps up to a year ago, and when the f*ck did Israel use chemical weapons?

1. Oh for f*ck sake you boring man, it's a figure of speech.
2. They used white phosphorus as a weapon, not just to provide smoke cover for their troops.
3. Oh, and also Iraq used chemical weapons in the 80's (materials were provided by the US under Regan administration) against Iran. No one cared then.
4. Because you're so boring and predictable it's easy to know what you're going to say next. So don't bother. Spare yourself the energy and spare me your borefest.

Y'know, it was pretty quiet and peaceful, and generally more enjoyable around Gen Chat while sivispacem was away these past few weeks. Shame his absence wasn't a more permanent affair.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#484

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:48 PM

Well I'm very sorry to have to call you out on your utter bullsh*t again, but would you be so kind as to explain to me what category's of chemical weapon white phosphorus is? Is it outlawed under the provisions of the poison gas or chemical warfare treaties? No? It isn't? So there we are. You've made a argument based on a statement that is simply untrue, then had the audacity to launch a personal attack against me for pointing out you were wrong. Besides, if you knew what I was going to say, why did you insist on rising to it? Why not just skulk off like you normally do when you're usual "you bore me" sputum gets tired?

f*ck's sake, at least have the backbone to stand in the piles of manure you create and argue they're gold.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#485

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:57 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:48)
Well I'm very sorry to have to call you out on your utter bullsh*t again, but would you be so kind as to explain to me what category's of chemical weapon white phosphorus is? Is it outlawed under the provisions of the poison gas or chemical warfare treaties? No? It isn't? So there we are. You've made a argument based on a statement that is simply untrue, then had the audacity to launch a personal attack against me for pointing out you were wrong. Besides, if you knew what I was going to say, why did you insist on rising to it? Why not just skulk off like you normally do when you're usual "you bore me" sputum gets tired?

f*ck's sake, at least have the backbone to stand in the piles of manure you create and argue they're gold.

And there is it. I knew you were going to say that white phosphorus isn't illegal. Never mind why. That's all you care about. Dry, boring facts without context. That's why it's pointless trying to argue with you about anything. You simply don't give a sh*t about thinking for yourself. Facts and definitions are the only thing that's important, even without any context. Never mind that white phosphorus is a chemical compound, and if you use it as a weapon it is a chemical f*ckin' weapon. That thought can never cross your precious little mind because you can only absorb the existing facts and definitions. Anything else is outside of your understanding. Which you already proved in that topic about artificial intelligence.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#486

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:04 PM

I don't know if you're aware of this, but bullets are made of chemical compounds. So are the explosives used in missile warheads. By your logic basically anything and everything used in warfare is a chemical weapon, be it benzene or brass alloy. That's why having a vaguely rational discussion with you is so difficult. You make idiotic, illogical, untenable statements that don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and then accuse anyone who disputes them of being a petty pedant. When in reality you're just an astounding hypocrite given that you behave in the exact f*cking same way when thr topic shifts to, say, religion.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#487

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:11 PM Edited by GTAvanja, 04 September 2013 - 03:18 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but bullets are made of chemical compounds. So are the explosives used in missile warheads.  By your logic basically anything and everything used in warfare is a chemical weapon, be it benzene or brass alloy.

Oh this is just precious. You're doing it again. Are we going to pretend that white phosphorus when used as a weapon doesn't inflict the same damage as napalm or flamethrowers, both of which are illegal because of what they can do to people? Are we going to ignore that certain standards exist regarding the legality of certain weapons, and that they don't always make sense?

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
That's why having a vaguely rational discussion with you is so difficult.

And you take all the fun out of...everything. It's like whatever it is that makes people interesting, you were born without it.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
You make idiotic, illogical, untenable statements that don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and then accuse anyone who disputes them of being a petty pedant.

And you post boring, unimaginative, useless, nonproductive facts that no one is interested in.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
When in reality you're just an astounding hypocrite given that you behave in the exact f*cking same way when thr topic shifts to, say, religion.

That's because unlike you, I acknowledge the context of the situation. What you see as hypocrisy stems from your inability to grasp the fundamental difference between the topics.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#488

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:17 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:11)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but bullets are made of chemical compounds. So are the explosives used in missile warheads.  By your logic basically anything and everything used in warfare is a chemical weapon, be it benzene or brass alloy.

Oh this is just precious. You're doing it again. Are we going to pretend that white phosphorus when used as a weapon doesn't inflict the same damage as napalm or flamethrowers, both of which are illegal because of what they can do to people? Are we going to ignore that certain standards exist regarding the legality of certain weapons, and that they don't always make sense?

Except napalm isn't illegal, and flamethrowers are only illegal for the armed forces of nations that signed the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons treaty. So yet again you're wrong.

And neither is restricted under any of the various chemical weapons clauses so the point is moot.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#489

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:17)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:11)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but bullets are made of chemical compounds. So are the explosives used in missile warheads.  By your logic basically anything and everything used in warfare is a chemical weapon, be it benzene or brass alloy.

Oh this is just precious. You're doing it again. Are we going to pretend that white phosphorus when used as a weapon doesn't inflict the same damage as napalm or flamethrowers, both of which are illegal because of what they can do to people? Are we going to ignore that certain standards exist regarding the legality of certain weapons, and that they don't always make sense?

Except napalm isn't illegal, and flamethrowers are only illegal for the armed forces of nations that signed the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons treaty. So yet again you're wrong.

And neither is restricted under any of the various chemical weapons clauses so the point is moot.

So it's OK for Assad to kill his people as long as he doesn't do it with chemical weapons like gas? It's OK if he uses napalm and flamethrowers? That's good to know. Someone should inform him ASAP.

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#490

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:38 PM

What's the latest update?

Mr. Sleepy
  • Mr. Sleepy

    Infamous

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#491

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 18:23)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:17)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:11)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but bullets are made of chemical compounds. So are the explosives used in missile warheads.  By your logic basically anything and everything used in warfare is a chemical weapon, be it benzene or brass alloy.

Oh this is just precious. You're doing it again. Are we going to pretend that white phosphorus when used as a weapon doesn't inflict the same damage as napalm or flamethrowers, both of which are illegal because of what they can do to people? Are we going to ignore that certain standards exist regarding the legality of certain weapons, and that they don't always make sense?

Except napalm isn't illegal, and flamethrowers are only illegal for the armed forces of nations that signed the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons treaty. So yet again you're wrong.

And neither is restricted under any of the various chemical weapons clauses so the point is moot.

So it's OK for Assad to kill his people as long as he doesn't do it with chemical weapons like gas? It's OK if he uses napalm and flamethrowers? That's good to know. Someone should inform him ASAP.

Hypocrisy is huge on earth.

I can smell ignorant comments coming from a mile away.

I love how America acts as the world police whenever it is in their interest, but if it isn't, they back off.
Lovely.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#492

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:46 PM Edited by GTAvanja, 04 September 2013 - 05:10 PM.

QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:38)
What's the latest update?

Syrian conflict title update v2.013.09

Single player US campaign:

-fixed the issue where the player would sometimes need Security Council approval for military intervention
-fixed the issue where the player would require Congressional approval for military intervention. The ability to ask the Congress is still available as an option but it isn't binding
-fixed the issue where John Kerry would sometimes appear human. His behavior is now fully political
-all keys can now be rebound
-some minor performance and stability improvements

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#493

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:23)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:17)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:11)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but bullets are made of chemical compounds. So are the explosives used in missile warheads.  By your logic basically anything and everything used in warfare is a chemical weapon, be it benzene or brass alloy.

Oh this is just precious. You're doing it again. Are we going to pretend that white phosphorus when used as a weapon doesn't inflict the same damage as napalm or flamethrowers, both of which are illegal because of what they can do to people? Are we going to ignore that certain standards exist regarding the legality of certain weapons, and that they don't always make sense?

Except napalm isn't illegal, and flamethrowers are only illegal for the armed forces of nations that signed the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons treaty. So yet again you're wrong.

And neither is restricted under any of the various chemical weapons clauses so the point is moot.

So it's OK for Assad to kill his people as long as he doesn't do it with chemical weapons like gas? It's OK if he uses napalm and flamethrowers? That's good to know. Someone should inform him ASAP.

Not at all. He's flagrantly violated numerous laws of war and has sponsored acts tantamount to genocide and crimes against humanity. He's every bit the despot that Saddam Hussein was. From a purely moralistic standpoint I'm largely for any kind of intervening action that prevents the large scale loss of human life through violent oppression but then again I see things like national identity and the concepts of rights being confined to artificial borders and boundaries almost reprehensible on their own. As long as we have the concept of national rather than human interest then situations will continue to arise where the human good is trumped by the short term good of one self-defined subgroup at the expense of all else.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#494

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:31 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 04 September 2013 - 05:33 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 07:17)
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".

So according to your logic states have no legal responsibility and are free to use force whenever they please. I find this an incredibly foolish and immoral standpoint for obvious reasons. You also state something is only illegal if it is prosecuted. That's like saying me murdering someone was only illegal if I get caught. That's not what illegal means. And on the issue of Turkey: Turkey is free to defend themselves from an armed attack until appropriate measures are taken by the UN security council, as I already stated.
QUOTE
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. Most casualties were after the bombing. So it's a very bad example to defend a Syrian invasion with.

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?

By that definition the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were also genocides.
QUOTE
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.

Colonializing a part of the world by creating borders, a state and a division of power is a very strange way of maintaining a status quo.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#495

Posted 04 September 2013 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31)
So according to your logic states have no legal responsibility and are free to use force whenever they please. I find this an incredibly foolish and immoral standpoint for obvious reasons.

Not really. A democratic nation with an accountable political authority at it's helm can only operate within the realms of what politically active citizens will permit on the international stage. Security is zero-sum and economic and strategic relationships are multilateral, which means that nations have to work in harmony in order to achieve mutual benefit in terms of security. Aggression begets aggression, which in a multi-polar world results in greater instability and an accentuation of the potential harms to the benefit of external competitors. The offence-defence balance generally favours the defender- especially in an international community which by principle tends to shun violence- which means that the strategic risks in terms of harm to an aggressor are significantly greater, all else being equal. As for the question of legal responsibility, that's why international organisations exist. However their existence does not necessarily mean that they're equipped with the teeth to properly act when a great or global power oversteps their reach and involves themselves in actions which lead to greater peripheral instability. You'd probably find it considerably less so if you hadn't misrepresented pretty much everything I'd said. It's also worth pointing out that at no point have I indicated that I find a system where the relative freedom of use of force is moral or otherwise- merely that it exists. It clearly does, because if it did not nations would not act aggressively, frequently counter to their long-term strategic interests, against each other.

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31)
You also state something is only illegal if it is prosecuted. That's like saying me murdering someone was only illegal if I get caught.

Which is a fair enough point if we were discussing an entity which governed on black and white rules without nuance or interpretation, like a judicial system does, but that simply isn't the case with the international community. It's far closer to something like a constitutional court, where absolutes are few and interpretation and relativity govern. Not to mention the inherent bias against small, isolationist nations and toward great and global powers capable of exerting overseas influence. I've never stated that things are not illegal if they are not prosecuted, either. Again, you seem to have misconstrued my argument either accidental or intentionally to try and misrepresent it, and have chosen to argue against a point I'm not making as if I had. It is a statement of categorical fact that nations are not deemed by the international community to have committed illegal acts unless a consensus exists that they have. If that consensus does not exist as far as international law is concerned, no breach has taken place. And even in the event of an ICJ judgement against a nation for a particular action, there's no compulsion for action on behalf of the Security Council. If there was then we- and by we I mean the international community- would have been obliged to intervene military in Syria already.

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31)
By that definition the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were also genocides.

Uh, no they aren't. Article 2 of the UN-CPPCG states

QUOTE (UN-CPPCG; Article 2)
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I see no evidence of an organised plot conducted by a state or non-state actor to systematically destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. That's primarily because no such plot exists, with the possible exception of the actions of violent Sunni non-state groups who seem to be waging a campaign that's certainly bordering on genocide against the Shia population in Iraq. Could you please quantify, preferably with reference to reputable external sources, exactly what about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan you interpret as a systematic attempt to destroy a national or transnational subgroup based on societal, cultural or religious identity?

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31)
Colonializing a part of the world by creating borders, a state and a division of power is a very strange way of maintaining a status quo.

You do know what "Tutsi" and "Hutu" mean don't you? They're not just simple distinctions between those with wealth (the former) and those without (the latter); anthropologically and genetically they're different too. Tutsis migrated into Rwanda from Burundi and effectively subjugated the Hutu people under a series of Tutsi kings until, and throughout, the colonial period.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#496

Posted 04 September 2013 - 08:26 PM

US Congress, which has a 15% approval rating on a good day, has spoken - the 'Home of the brave' is going to strike against Syria. Warmongers must be pleased.

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#497

Posted 04 September 2013 - 08:37 PM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 16:26)
US Congress, which has a 15% approval rating on a good day, has spoken - the 'Home of the brave' is going to strike against Syria. Warmongers must be pleased.

What?! I'm f*cking terrified. When is this happening?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

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

#498

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:11 PM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 21:26)
US Congress, which has a 15% approval rating on a good day, has spoken - the 'Home of the brave' is going to strike against Syria. Warmongers must be pleased.

I'm just interested to see what the composure of this "coalition of the willing" will be. The US, France and...?

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#499

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:18 PM

They just said it still has to pass the full Senate and the House.

Mr. Sleepy
  • Mr. Sleepy

    Infamous

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#500

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:23 PM

So, America is going to attack Syria?

I haven't been following thoroughly.

The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    Don't Mind Me...

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

#501

Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:41 PM

House Backing Attacks. Senate Panel Approves War 10 for, 7 Against.

McCain flips his sh*t again. He still thinks fighting a ground war would be more effective.

Committee also voted 14 to 5 for an amendment that says Obama can say "F*ck you" to congress if they don't want to strike, and he still can.

In other news, happy Rosh Hashanah Jews.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#502

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:03 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 22:11)
QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 21:26)
US Congress, which has a 15% approval rating on a good day, has spoken - the 'Home of the brave' is going to strike against Syria. Warmongers must be pleased.

I'm just interested to see what the composure of this "coalition of the willing" will be. The US, France and...?

Turkey seems like a very likely candidate, they have been very vocal and clear about intervention in Syria, and have stated that they're ready to join a coalition for action against the Assad Regime. With or without a UN security council mandate.

Rown
  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#503

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:21 PM

No floor votes have taken place, all that's happened so far is the Senate committee briefed yesterday has passed a resolution authorizing limited force. It would still have to be agreed to by the full Senate, and by the House of Representatives.

Here are some CNN predictions of how votes would fall. If only we got this much detail from a major outlet for every significant vote.


CNN Vote Estimates

House of Representatives

Senate



Rown rampage_ani.gif

Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#504

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:29 PM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 10:11)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:04)
That's why having a vaguely rational discussion with you is so difficult.

And you take all the fun out of...everything. It's like whatever it is that makes people interesting, you were born without it.

Have truer words ever been spoken? monocle.gif Anyways what is going on with this Syria crap?

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#505

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:07 PM

QUOTE (Rown @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 18:21)
No floor votes have taken place, all that's happened so far is the Senate committee briefed yesterday has passed a resolution authorizing limited force. It would still have to be agreed to by the full Senate, and by the House of Representatives.

Here are some CNN predictions of how votes would fall. If only we got this much detail from a major outlet for every significant vote.


CNN Vote Estimates

House of Representatives

Senate



Rown rampage_ani.gif

icon14.gif

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Alcoholic Blues

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States
  • Most Helpful [Expression] 2013

#506

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:10 PM

This will probably be nothing more than just another 'Desert Storm' minus the amount of ground troops assembled.

Oh well, war makes money, so guess that explains our part. Though I'm curious as well, we know France is in.. who's the other? James Bond? wow.gif

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

    Frazy as Cruck

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2012

#507

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:22 AM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 20:26)
US Congress, which has a 15% approval rating on a good day, has spoken - the 'Home of the brave' is going to strike against Syria. Warmongers must be pleased.

Yeah, this is sad. Not bad for the retards who likes to see people dying though.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

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

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

#508

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:47 AM

I hope this doesn't get approved. What is Iran's stance on US intervention in Syria?

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#509

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:56 AM

QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 20:47)
I hope this doesn't get approved. What is Iran's stance on US intervention in Syria?

I've heard there could be a terror attack.

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#510

Posted 05 September 2013 - 02:35 AM

I'd just like to ask anyone well informed in military matter what the striked on Syria will likely look like.
I understand that it is going to likely involve cruise missiles and air raids, but what are the likely effects on the various Assad Forces?

I've been reading somewhat differing predictions from various news sites - ranging from totally crippling Syria's Air Force and Chemical Weapons Programme, to merely being a symbolic warning to Assad not to use Chemical weapons again.

Also, how much would this intervention tip the baalnce towards the Oppostion Forces?

Thanks.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users