09-20-2013 05:13 PM
368 123 ...
tools
  1. Fairclough's Avatar
    Thoughts?
    If its Chemical Warfare, I am taking Russia's view... drone it, missile strike it but no boots.
    08-27-2013 08:20 AM
  2. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Thoughts?
    If its Chemical Warfare, I am taking Russia's view... drone it, missile strike it but no boots.
    Problem is, missle strikes could actually release some chemicals depending on where they move them. Dealing with chemicals is a tough situation and there are no easy ways out here.
    08-27-2013 01:24 PM
  3. Fairclough's Avatar
    You do know what chemical warfare is right. Russia suggested taking out almost all the transport routes which seams like a logical approach.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-27-2013 06:44 PM
  4. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    We better leave it to Russia to handle it. Russia is throwing threats left and right to anyone who intervenes militarily.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-27-2013 08:09 PM
  5. Fairclough's Avatar
    They actually just don't want another middle East scenario. They just don't want soldiers in the ground.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-27-2013 09:36 PM
  6. llamabreath's Avatar
    It's astonishing that other countries are threatening or foretelling mayhem, retribution, rings of fire, devastation on us if we intervene, but they are perfectly happy, fine and jolly with Syria exterminating its own people like roaches.

    Wonderful world.

    msndrstood and petaf like this.
    08-27-2013 09:38 PM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    If in reference to Russia, they are actually saying there should be an intervention but not via troops on the ground but by air.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-27-2013 11:07 PM
  8. GadgetGator's Avatar
    They actually just don't want another middle East scenario. They just don't want soldiers in the ground.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Well no, they actually don't want us attacking a business associate of theirs.
    08-28-2013 12:56 AM
  9. jdbii's Avatar
    I'd like to see Congress authorize any military action, otherwise I think it would be beyond the President's authority to unilaterally act. I happened to turn on CNN today for a bit, and I also watched a couple of the network's evening newscasts and I am amazed at how fast and quick the news channels have gone into high gear. It is like they are all seasoned pros at war coverage and you can almost see them salivating at the prospect of increased ratings. It is really sad because it gives the impression that war is a spectator sport.
    Aquila and GadgetGator like this.
    08-28-2013 03:59 AM
  10. Fairclough's Avatar
    Well no, they actually don't want us attacking a business associate of theirs.
    They said to do air strikes on the airport port, transport hubs etc. So I don't think that's the case.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-28-2013 08:54 AM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    Sad, but true.

    I was browsing through some news radio stations using the TuneIn Radio application. I stumbled upon an investor radio show. I guess I shouldn't call them investors, but rather vultures. They were discussing how to make some quick money with the Syrian crisis. Questions like, "Will it last long enough, so Raytheon would be good investment?". It really opened my eyes. Sad!
    msndrstood, jdbii and petaf like this.
    08-28-2013 09:24 AM
  12. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    No matter what the US does, most countries throughout the world will hate us. I don't know why we keep giving money and weapons to those who hate us.

    I'm just tickled that how people forget. They call Bush and Chaney war criminals for side stepping congress, but it's ok if Obama does. As an independent, its not ok if any president does.
    Aquila, jdbii, eshropshire and 1 others like this.
    08-28-2013 11:05 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    They call Bush and Chaney war criminals for side stepping congress
    That and creating the false pretenses for entering the war that they and their friends made hundreds of billions of dollars off of and financing both sides of the war. In my opinion, which no one ever asked for, every bullet fired at one of our soldiers in Iraq is an accessory to attempted murder charge waiting to happen and treason charge for every fallen or wounded soldier. If the Congress doesn't declare war, we are not at war. That involves declaring war against a country and having an end game up front. A border free infinite war against an idea is just ridiculous.

    but it's ok if Obama does
    Even worse when he does it because the people who elected him were counting on him to end and rectify those evil practices.

    its not ok if any president does.
    Agree 100%.

    We haven't declared war since World War 2. If I recall right, it was in 1942 against Bulgaria and Romania. I'm not totally against our involvement in some of the conflicts we get into.. but I think Congress needs to declare it. No police actions, no peace keeping missions, blah blah. Either the nation agrees to it or they don't. Unilateral powers are scary.
    jdbii likes this.
    08-29-2013 12:07 AM
  14. GadgetGator's Avatar
    They said to do air strikes on the airport port, transport hubs etc. So I don't think that's the case.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Given a choice they will try and talk us down to a lessor action, but do you really beleive that they wouldn't prefer we do nothing at all?
    08-29-2013 12:52 AM
  15. Fairclough's Avatar
    No matter what the US does, most countries throughout the world will hate us. I don't know why we keep giving money and weapons to those who hate us.
    Because people are in need. To be honest there are some events the US government itself doesn't donate that much in comparison to other nations. In the tsunami in 2004 we donated $1 billion USD, we have 20 million citizens. America of 32 0million citizens donated $950 million. However, your ngo's donated 8x ours thus your total figure was a fair bit higher, which should be right as the is 16x the amount of people in the states than I'm Australia. In absolute terms, according to wikipedia the States has donated 30.46 billion, Australia 5.44 which works out to be 5.59x more than us, however with 16x the the population that's about one third of what we donate per citizen. So in donations per capita for a government, that states really doesn't donate that much. These were donations to Countries who have directly attacked us also.

    This is why we donate, this is from John Howard (prime minster 1996-2007) when questioned about his blank cheques.
    MARK WILLACY: Mr Howard weve just heard the latest from Washington, but some commentators back here are saying, were the only country to give the US a blank cheque when it comes to support. What are the limits on our commitment to the US?

    JOHN HOWARD: Well weve said that we will support the Americans to the limit of our capability. Obviously if were asked to contribute in a particular way, it will be for us to decide, whether we can or will do that. But, theres no point in a situation like this, being an 80 per cent ally.

    You are either a 100 per cent ally of a country that was a 100 per cent ally of Australias in World War II and it made the difference between Australias surviving or going under to the Japanese assault. We have to remember it we have to remember the history that America came to our aid, we have been close allies ever since.

    This is an assault, as much on the freedom and the values of Australian society as it is on the freedom and the values of American society. Im sure the Americans will behave in a targeted, yet lethal fashion. That is what we have encouraged them to do and weve indicated that well be part of that response, if that is what they want.

    Given a choice they will try and talk us down to a lessor action, but do you really beleive that they wouldn't prefer we do nothing at all?
    I believe they, like most nations don't want another Iraq war. Thus, they are trying to find a solution which minimises the loss of human life. E.g By air strikes rather by soldiers on foot.
    Posted via Android Central App
    08-29-2013 05:28 AM
  16. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Because people are in need. To be honest there are some events the US government itself doesn't donate that much in comparison to other nations. In the tsunami in 2004 we donated $1 billion USD, we have 20 million citizens. America of 32 0million citizens donated $950 million. However, your ngo's donated 8x ours thus your total figure was a fair bit higher, which should be right as the is 16x the amount of people in the states than I'm Australia. In absolute terms, according to wikipedia the States has donated 30.46 billion, Australia 5.44 which works out to be 5.59x more than us, however with 16x the the population that's about one third of what we donate per citizen. So in donations per capita for a government, that states really doesn't donate that much. These were donations to Countries who have directly attacked us also.
    These people that we helped during the Tsunami, were cheering during 9-11. And The problem is, most people that need don't get aid, it's usually the rich few and not the needy many.
    08-29-2013 06:47 AM
  17. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    That and creating the false pretenses for entering the war that they and their friends made hundreds of billions of dollars off of and financing both sides of the war. In my opinion, which no one ever asked for, every bullet fired at one of our soldiers in Iraq is an accessory to attempted murder charge waiting to happen and treason charge for every fallen or wounded soldier. If the Congress doesn't declare war, we are not at war. That involves declaring war against a country and having an end game up front. A border free infinite war against an idea is just ridiculous.



    Even worse when he does it because the people who elected him were counting on him to end and rectify those evil practices.



    Agree 100%.

    We haven't declared war since World War 2. If I recall right, it was in 1942 against Bulgaria and Romania. I'm not totally against our involvement in some of the conflicts we get into.. but I think Congress needs to declare it. No police actions, no peace keeping missions, blah blah. Either the nation agrees to it or they don't. Unilateral powers are scary.
    I thought democrats voted to go into Iraq too after reviewing the same intelligence. I may be wrong.
    08-29-2013 06:49 AM
  18. Fairclough's Avatar
    These people that we helped during the Tsunami, were cheering during 9-11. And The problem is, most people that need don't get aid, it's usually the rich few and not the needy many.
    The footage shown on the news of burning flags etc, was archived footage which happened prior to 9-11. Secondly I doubt India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Thailand were cheering, there were additional countries to the list but they weren't hit as hard, only a few causalities and minute damage in comparison. Last time I checked the same people who attacked the twin towers attacked in Indonesia, if you remember the night club blowing up - not sure if it was news over where you are. It was big news here!

    You actually might be wrong on the rich getting the aid. As most of our money went to hospitals etc, secondly our government rather than directly handing over the cash in most places buy's the supplies than deliverer's it with out military. Thirdly, its often the rich who assist e.g. Kobe Earthquake, guess who was actually one of the first people to provide relief the Yamaguchi-gumi (largest gang). Fourthly, Our own rich made sure its the people who got the aid. I remember Bali Bombings perfectly as one example, Dad got a call about 1am for a flight to leave in about 30 minutes directly to the attack as he worked for the media than in the general media section (he moved to sport before leaving the newspaper), I remember him saying that the worse bit about the trip was not that the bodies burning smell, but even when he was finally coming back that they're were still bodies with him on his plane. Why? because his bosses gave their personal planes to be used transport victims to our hospitals as the Indonesian hospitals were under strain.

    I highly doubt - that these countries wanted an attack on American Soil, let alone their own.
    Syria-a_141002genbalimf3-2-m.jpg
    Syria-a_141002genbalimf1-2-m.jpg
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-29-2013 07:01 AM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    The footage shown on the news of burning flags etc, was archived footage which happened prior to 9-11.
    That's a convenient falsehood thrown around to minimize what actually happened that day.

    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    08-29-2013 07:32 AM
  20. jdbii's Avatar
    I thought democrats voted to go into Iraq too after reviewing the same intelligence. I may be wrong.
    A majority of them did, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Chuck Hagel, all key members (or former member in Clinton's case) of Obama's cabinet. Obama didn't support the war and it is the probably why he beat out Clinton in the primary, but he promptly turned his back on many of the principles he campaigned on once he assumed office.

    Edit. Chuck Hagel is a Republican. Thank you for anybody who noticed but decided to let it be rather than publicly point out mistake.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    08-29-2013 07:43 AM
  21. jdbii's Avatar
    if you remember the night club blowing up
    The Bali night club bombing was big news here in the US as well. It was a terrible tragedy and a cowardly act.
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 07:47 AM
  22. TheOnlyMorgan's Avatar
    My view on the Syrian conflict is. I've seen pictures and video of what some rebels have done to civilians for refusing to fight. I've seen video of a home with a dead family inside who refused to fight. I've seen a clip of a child about to behead a grown man in the streets with a machete before I closed the window. And I also know, that the largest rebel group in the country is Al Nusra Front. An Al Qaeda affiliate. There's video of a child being raised on a man's shoulders in Syria and singing a song praising Al Qaeda and talking about crashing planes into the World Trade Center. I know some people would say, 'don't let a few bad apples ruin the bunch'. But it's a pretty chunk of bad apples in the batch. And a lot of smaller rebel groups have sworn allegiance to Al Nusra Front. Knowing all of that, and knowing that Iraq was for sure a load of lies to get people on board for the war there. I wouldn't feel good about people being sent in, or even assisting in the effort to go against Assad - and I've seen some regular people from the region say that as much as Assad sucks, government forces are going up against legit terrorists who just want to **** up the country and take it over - because there's just too many variables for ****uppery, and too many parts of the equation that are immoral as all get out. No more wars, no more tax dollars spent on this BS part of human existence, no more wasted lives, no more dead troops. I'm sick of it. It's unnecessary to go in or help anyone, because it seems that at any moment, some rebel soldier would take a knife to an American's back or even just a civilian. There's also a lot of religious persecution going on from some of the rebels where people are being killed because of their religion. It should be none of US business and it could have disastrous results.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    08-29-2013 08:01 AM
  23. Fairclough's Avatar
    TheOnlyMorgan, allowing crimes against humanity to exist only enforces that it is tolerable or that the rest of the world will turn a blind eye and allow the problem to become more wide spread. World War II, what was the alliances biggest error? It was not enforcing the treaty of Versailles. Allowing them to grow, once they grew, we had to policy of appeasement, that just encouraged it to go further and further... how did that go? not very well once they cross the Rhineland the world was gone. We were just fortunate that after our mistake, they made a bigger one by turning on the Russians. You can see if you don't cut a problem down when it begins it just continues. Russians are actually sharing part of your view that troops shouldn't be sent to be shot down, but they want the problem stopped by an attack by air. It can be done and wars have been won by doing it in the past.


    On a side note, who remembers the Armenian Genocide? if we don't put our foot down things in history repeat themselves. Why did I mention the Armenian Genocide, Hitler said no one will notice his extermination because no one remembers the Armenian's. The globe needs to make an example that such things cannot and will not be tolerated. If the world watches by, the blood is on their hands too.
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-29-2013 08:12 AM
  24. msndrstood's Avatar
    Unless you're sitting in that chair with the responsibility of protecting 315 million lives, you can never know what is going on behind the scenes.

    I know there are multiple rebel groups fighting in Syria, and at some point it won't matter who deployed the chemical weapons if it happens again. There has to be a point where civilized people stand up and say, 'no more'. I am hardly a hawk when it comes to war, and I suspect what will happen will be similar to what Clinton did in Bosnia. It's also possible that several Seal Teams and Rangers as well as SAS with be inserted to find and destroy the chemical weapons. Arthur the government forces are busy with the cruise missiles rating upon them.

    Should Obama go to Congress? Probably, if you're going to go strictly by the Constitution. However, considering the mess that is Congress, I don't blame him for being highly skeptical and reluctant to deal with that band of fools. They will argue and bicker while Syrian cities burn and more children die. Have you watched the video of those children dying? I have, and wish I hadn't. It's viscerally uncomfortable to watch.

    I would be truly interested in the opinions of those who are against any intervention if this wasn't another Muslim country, but rather a Christian one. Prejudices do matter.

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 08:36 AM
  25. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    My problem is that everyone ecpects that the US should do something. The US shouldn't have to. This should be a UN effort. We are willing to go over there in blow something up yet 20, 000 mexicans a year are killed in the cartel drug wars and we don't seem to care. Interesting don't you think? We shouldn't have to take the lead on everything, especially when we've got pro lems in our own backyard.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 09:37 AM
368 123 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD