xxxMidgexxx wrote:I say nay.
Enough with being the world police.
xxxMidgexxx wrote:But perhaps I just love drone stuff in general.
tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?
It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.
Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?
Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?
GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.
xxxMidgexxx wrote:But perhaps I just love drone stuff in general.
xxxMidgexxx wrote:But perhaps I just love drone stuff in general.
JGJR wrote:tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?
It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.
Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?
Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?
GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.
My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.
yourenotevil wrote:"brownie points"
yourenotevil wrote:JGJR wrote:tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?
It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.
Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?
Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?
GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.
My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.
i think half of the reason why obama is considering this is that it would win america back some "brownie points" with the international community if we bombed someone over the use of chemical weapons instead of the last two wars where we had other things to gain besides "instituting democracy across the globe." like i said, i think he kind of put his foot in his mouth with the whole syria cannot cross this red line thing. if he takes no action, he looks weak and will be called a hypocrite. if he bombs the country, people will call him a war monger and the second coming of Bush II. we have dropped bombs on afghanistan before in 98(i believe it was the year) in retaliation for embassy bombings without committing to ground troops, but the whole iran thing makes this a lot more precarious.
xxxMidgexxx wrote:But perhaps I just love drone stuff in general.
xxxMidgexxx wrote:But perhaps I just love drone stuff in general.
Michele wrote:Honestly, I don't think Obama got a specific role in this, I mean, ONU could have a role maybe, but why the USA should have a decisional role coming to another state outside a war involving them?
This is somethign hard to understand for me. I mean, the self-imposed role of World judge assumed by USA since the last century.
Please, feel free to explain this to me without getting mad for my honest speech
xxxHunterxxx wrote:whoever ends up in power may be worse than Assad.
Michele wrote:xxxHunterxxx wrote:whoever ends up in power may be worse than Assad.
that's exactly my point, looks at Egypt, there was a revolution everybody was welcoming calling it a freedom spring, than the situation got worse and the Occidental world started to fear for an Islamic extremists turn in the so called free Egypt, so right by now we have a new revolution going on and the world is encouraging a new change... so who can decide what's better for a nation? and moreover, can we assume the right to decide from the outside on another Coutnry?
That's so hard to understand as it looks like a no-solution in between interfere on a sovran country and defend freedom inside it.
JGJR wrote:yourenotevil wrote:JGJR wrote:tango fistula wrote:Who would ever vote yay?
It will mean 200,000 or more civilian dead...1000 to 10000 maimed or killed
on our end and massive profits for all our weapons manufacturing and yet more map reconfiguring.
Our permanent war economy (since 1941...or ever 1897) has won us nothing but hatred and contempt. Once we trash Syria and put our puppet in...who will be next?
Theres always a "next" war...why is this ok?
GAHHHH the human species is a total parasite and will never actually evolve.
My thoughts exactly (great post), but the above assumes a ground invasion, which thankfully isn't being considered at the time. I'm completely opposed to any military action and agree that they would win us nothing but more hatred and contempt, but an air strike like what's being discussed just isn't of that magnitude.
i think half of the reason why obama is considering this is that it would win america back some "brownie points" with the international community if we bombed someone over the use of chemical weapons instead of the last two wars where we had other things to gain besides "instituting democracy across the globe." like i said, i think he kind of put his foot in his mouth with the whole syria cannot cross this red line thing. if he takes no action, he looks weak and will be called a hypocrite. if he bombs the country, people will call him a war monger and the second coming of Bush II. we have dropped bombs on afghanistan before in 98(i believe it was the year) in retaliation for embassy bombings without committing to ground troops, but the whole iran thing makes this a lot more precarious.
If this is true, then the Obama administration is miscalculating in a big way. All it would do is increase hatred of the U.S. in the Middle East and furthermore, if the UK with a Tory prime minister is against this, then no way re: standing in the international community.
And BTW, the U.S. bombed no-fly zones constantly in Iraq between the first and second wars there (in the '90s).
Michele wrote:Honestly, I don't think Obama got a specific role in this, I mean, ONU could have a role maybe, but why the USA should have a decisional role coming to another state outside a war involving them?
This is somethign hard to understand for me. I mean, the self-imposed role of World judge assumed by USA since the last century.
Please, feel free to explain this to me without getting mad for my honest speech
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 298 guests