[SexyBack]

Have to say, the amount of conspiracy vomit seemingly educated people are eager to gobble up never ceases to amaze me.

No one wants to get involved in Syria. It's a powder keg and we've had enough costly inteventions in muslim countries recently to know the ROI is not worth the trouble. These guys never get their shit together even after you point them in the right direction, give them a bunch of money and show great leniency. That ship has sailed.

Regardless, some shit you just can't let slide, and willfully using nerve gas against civilians is not on. And it shouldn't be. I don't know where you guys grew up but my grandfather and great-uncles all went to war over tyrants comitting genocide. What's changed? Did you see all those suffering children? Do you think they're plastic dolls?

Have we become so afraid to offend the Russians and Chinese that we're not going to stand up for what we believe in and enforce our bounderies? Regardless of what the west does these days half of our own population is always blaming ourselves for action as well as inaction. If anything, that is a tell-tale sign of a declining hegemony. But until we fully get there, I'm in favour of sending an unambiguous message to those who did this.

[dk902]

Quote:

Have to say, the amount of conspiracy vomit seemingly educated people are eager to gobble up never ceases to amaze me.

The fact you believe everything propagated in the media amazes me.

Quote:

Regardless, some shit you just can't let slide, and willfully using nerve gas against civilians is not on.

Do we know for sure it was Assad who did it?

Or could it be someone trying to draw the West into another conflict and give them another Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam?

[SexyBack]

I believe what I deem to be believable and what appears plausible to me given the often times limited amount of information provided.

At times I consider, exactly which conspiracy theory out of the many I've had to be subjected to and lectured about by educated people at dinner parties in the past 15 years has proven itself to be even remotely substantial? All about establishing permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan? Securing all the oil? (the emergence of fracking kinda puts a damper on the whole oil angle don't it?). Israelis and CIA blowing up the twin towers? CIA controls Al Qaida?

So here we go again, the US has given nerve gas to terrorists to justify getting involved in a mess they don't really want to get involved in ... but for better to wage war in Iran in a few years to come. Ohkay.

I say wait for the intelligence report to come out. I'm pretty sure neither Obama nor Cameron or Hollande would come out with such strong soundbites if they weren't sure. They probably caught the missiles being launched on Satelite or something. You don't risk your political future on something like this. Cameron wants to run again. Nothings going to happen before Saturday anyway. Thursday the house of commons will vote on this, Friday is the holy muslim day, so Saturday or Sunday it is.

What's remarkable about all this stuff is not us being doubtful of our own media and politicians, that's fine, likely even justified, but the willingness of so many of us to always rather believe in comical ali or ghadafis spokesman has to be concerning.

[eradicator]

(08-26-2013 10:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And before you say he was better than Romney - I'm not saying you should have voted for Romney. The answers have been the same for the last 10 years:

- Don't vote
- Or vote third party

I voted for Gary Johnson in the last election. But in reality we don't know if he would have done anything that different than bush and obama once he got into office.

[lskdfjldsf]

I dunno - we've had pretty great contrast in policy with past presidents. Bush was a useful idiot guided by shortsighted principle, while Obama (who I believe is highly intelligent, despite his actions) simply maximized his persona and exploited the natural senses of greed, envy, and sloth of the lower-class American electorate in order to win the presidency.

Bet your ass Obama did his homework - through a "red pill" lens, you can clearly see he researched human psychology, sociology, modern history, and marketing/advertising concepts to become successful. Even his election logo was brilliant in design (e.g. the golden arches of McDonalds; it has a psychological effect)

As much as I believe we need a libertarian in office to dismantle the current welfare/surveillance state, it's naive to think one can be elected in the first place. People are stupid, that's a universal truth; there will always be white trash, black trash, Hispanic trash, etc. (not to mention our pampered generation of college grad "feel good" liberals) that are so self-absorbed they'll vote for any politician that promises them something.

Now we're in the "war" phase of our history, where the war on women.. war on christianity.. etc. are so sociologically powerful, anyone fired up enough under those false pretenses dictates who gets elected. Imagine if a mainstream candidate ran on a platform of the "war against men" - do you believe that we, as men deeply concerned with the effects of feminism and erosion of mens rights, could objectively vet him?

Every person has a cause, be it religion, political activism, work/career ambition, or even a hobby. The causes cherished by conservatives and/or libertarians are no longer relevant to a younger generation that simply doesn't know any better. Our future generation is more fired up by racial/gender activism than by a direct encroachment on our civil liberties or misguided foreign policy.

Syria is proof of that.

[3extra]

Chemical weapons or not (with no proof thus far), how does a country allied with military forces that have used depleted uranium shells, white phosphorus and has killed hundreds of thousands in a war that had no legal backing have the moral authority to do anything?

International Law is for foreigners.

This is Iraq 1991 and 2003 all over again. Here are some pictures of dead children (ignore the pictures of dead children WE killed). Let's go to war.

Just sickening.

[SexyBack]

... international law... sadly, no one actually adheres to it. Does China (uh, cough, Tibet)? How about Russians little adventure in Georgia in 2008? Chechnya? Abkhazia? When government leaders talk about international law they are primarily concerned with legal consequences within their own country. Will I be impeached if I do this? No, ok, good to go.

The war is already happening. It's been going on for over two years. Cruise missiles won't change that.

In the cold light of day, there's a much stronger moral case for a military intervention here than in 2003, where the reasons, as we all know were very very flimsy. There's no binding morality son. It's just the way of the world. And that way is the winning allies of ww2 call the shots when push comes to shove. Pretty much everyone agreed 20 years ago that chemical weapons are off limits. Now they're being used. Consequences have to ensue.

I'm not sure why you mentioned desert storm, which was widely backed by the UN and 90% of the countries in the world. Iraq invaded a defenceless country and showed absolutely no intent of withdrawing.


Just saw this (yes it's the daily fail, regardless)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...chief.html

Looks more and more like a case of a trigger happy battlefield commander taking 'initiative'.

[NikNik]

I like how the Americans here are honest and telling it how it is.It's all a struggle for more power and not some humanitarian fairy tale about saving innocent lives.The war is raging for 2 years there and if they want to save lives why have they waited so long?

Let me tell you an information.I'm from a small European country with a Muslim minority and it's a public secret here that there are dozens of mercenaries that went to fight in Syria,just imagine how many more of them are there from large Muslim countries so it's not even 100% a civil war.

[NikNik]

(08-28-2013 07:39 AM)SexyBack Wrote:  

In the cold light of day, there's a much moral case for a military intervention here than in 2003, where the reasons, as we all know were very very flimsy. There's no binding morality son. It's just the way of the world. And that way is the winning allies of ww2 call the shots when push comes to shove.

Exactly,all the talk about morality and what is right and wrong is bullshit but the west is constantly justifying their actions with it.The strong call the shots it's always been that way it's just that today it is masked with humanitarian causes.

[Cattle Rustler]

There's a war against Christianity? LOL, I'm sure Christianity IS the pretext under which we go to war for. "Terrorists (Muslims) are trying to take away our freedoms". The US was founded as a secular country.

Believing everything by the "real media" (anti media) is the same as believing everything in the mainstream media.

[SexyBack]

Well it's not all bullshit, morality is part of the decision making, but national security interests probably weigh in far more heavily. The use of chemical weapons is very serious. Whoever thinks the allies would stand by and wait to see what happens is naive. Is attacking Syria the right thing to do? Who knows, history will tell soon enough.

But having someone use chemical weapons anywhere in the world in the 21st century is not compatible with NATOs security standards. The assumption was that Assad had his stuff under lock and keep, that it was off limits. Now it turns out it's not. Either he's not fully in charge of his military or he himself allowed it. Either scenario is a massive threat that has to be dealt with. What if these munitions make it out of Syria. It's not in anyone's interest that this happened.

[lskdfjldsf]

(08-28-2013 07:41 AM)NikNik Wrote:  

I like how the Americans here are honest and telling it how it is.It's all a struggle for more power and not some humanitarian fairy tale about saving innocent lives.The war is raging for 2 years there and if they want to save lives why have they waited so long?

Let me tell you an information.I'm from a small European country with a Muslim minority and it's a public secret here that there are dozens of mercenaries that went to fight in Syria,just imagine how many more of them are there from large Muslim countries so it's not even 100% a civil war.

We captured German and French Muslims in Iraq - this is nothing new. With any war involving Muslims, you see large numbers of foreign jihadists from the West entering the fray. Downplayed, of course, no one wants to be seen as an "islamophobe" in Europe.

[Sherman]

Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack

"The Obama administration is about to launch the United States headlong into a conflict that could spark a new war in the Middle East, yet the very justification for the assault is being blithely accepted by the mainstream media, who have learned nothing from how their obsequious and unquestioning behavior prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq helped grease the skids for a decade of bloodshed and disaster."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/intelligence...ttack.html

[jaakkeli]

(08-28-2013 08:07 AM)SexyBack Wrote:  

The use of chemical weapons is very serious.

Why? Why is it more serious to kill someone with a "chemical weapon" than by a gun?

Whatever "chemical weapons" are available to a low tech military are likely to be very ineffective - if they were any good, they'd have been used in conflicts like World War II where no one flinched at the thought of bombing cities full of civilians to rubble. Chemical weapons were only ever used to any effect for a few years during World War I when they were new and then militaries figured out that simple training and cheap breath masks nullify most of the threat.

The big powers don't use chemicals because they're just not good weapons. That's why they gathered together to celebrate their great humanity in banning these ineffective but scary sounding weapons.

Quote:

But having someone use chemical weapons anywhere in the world in the 21st century is not compatible with NATOs security standards.

If Syrian troops were equipped with spears for the lack of any better weapons, would you conclude that a) using spears in today's world is barbaric and unacceptable and justifies painting Syria as a grave threat to the world or that b) using spears in today's world is so far behind the advanced weaponry of the West that Syria cannot be considered any threat at all to anyone besides their own population?

Quote:

Either scenario is a massive threat that has to be dealt with.

No, poison gas is no graver threat to anyone than just having Syrian troops go from house to house and shooting people. The fuss about chemicals is just deplorable moral panic propaganda over a weapon so inferior and outdated that the Western powers don't even use it anymore.

There's not even any actual proof of intentional use of poison gas. Syria is in a chaotic civil war with a lot of belligerents and hundreds of people dying in a day means that there are tons of corpses around with undetermined causes of death. As long as we have only a handful of corpses with evidence of poisoning we have absolutely no way of telling whether they were actually gassed or whether a bomb hit a pesticide warehouse next door.

Me, I'd be happy to consider saving some civilians from a massacre (poison gas or not) but the thing is, I want to be convinced that the intervention will actually do some good and the past few Western interventions in Arab countries have been disasters. Why would it be different this time?

[SexyBack]

Jaak, I believe you're trying to debate reason and moral here, something I won't attempt to partake in. What I was trying to explain was simply what is going on.

You're right, in strategic and tactical terms chemical weapons aren't good weapons. They're unpredictable, dangerous to your own troops, susceptible to weather conditions, and generally used to deny the enemy from entering an area (area of denial munition). As such they've become insignficant because of the mobility element of the modern battlefield. There's no point denying a small area to the enemy, if they can drive or fly elsewhere. The risk of harming civilians is far too great.

Why the events of last week are unacceptable is a line has indeed been crossed. If these weapons are out on the battlefield and not locked in a guarded armory they could end up anywhere in the world. They could end up on the tube in London or on a ferry from Stockholm to Abo. You might argue that the risk is minute but it doesn't matter. The event proves the weapons are deployed and that alone is compelling enough reason for the UK and US to act. There's no stopping it now.

Obama made that clear over a year ago when talking about the red line. This is it. The moral reasoning is that the act of deploying "a weapon of mass destruction" is stigmatic. Whoever is making the rules in our world has decided that using weapons of mass destruction is a no-go.

You won't be convinced military action is better than not doing anything at all. For me, the MSF statement was enough to convince me. The symptoms described could only be caused by sarin gas or similar compound, confirmed by a well respected independent and definitely pacifist NGO.

In military terms none of the recent western interventions have been disasters, not even remotely. Did they improve matters? I don't know. Well it this time? I don't know.

I'm a bit appalled by you downplaying the significance of chemical weapons being used though. Maybe you should go read about witness accounts of the 1994/5 sarin gas terrorist attacks in Japan.

[DirectDanger]

Thought you guys might like to read this analysis of the situation...

War Tard - The Syrian Regional War: NATO on deck!

Quote:

Look's like NATO and Obama's tech geeks are going to go ahead with a 'limited' attack on Syria.

The US has four destroyers in the Mediterranean right now each packing 90 Tomahawks apiece plus the British have a Trafalgar class submarine offshore and a Rapid Reaction force setting up shop at Akrotiri in Cyprus. It's hard to figure the real justification here (outside of the details I gave in my previous post) but the international media play here seems to be: "Assad unleashed his chemical weaponry and wasted civilians so now it's time for the West to bring some kinetic blast energy into the mix to punish Assad for killing people in an unapproved way." Yep, it seems the reasoning behind the attack is going to be that retarded. You kill your people via asphyxiation so we'll kill more of your people via high explosive and that'll teach you a lesson for your "moral obscenity".

Such is the madness of war.

Of course, this can't be the only reason for the attack and this is just the bullshit they're going to print in the newspapers. A recent poll indicated 60% of the American public are against any intervention in Syria (because they're smart) but modern proxy resource war is never a game of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" so there is no 'ask the audience' option. The corporate oligarchy are just gonna go ahead and blow shit up and continue with the wider plan of gobbling up the entire energy riches of the Middle East.

Syria will be first on the permanently destabilized list, followed later by Iran.

This attack, for the moment, is being advertised as merely a 'one off strike' to punish Assad for using chemical weapons (if he used them, more on that later). It's the "poke the hornets net with a stick and see what happens" theory of war. If Assad reacts and does something stupid like launching missiles at Israel (highly unlikely) then NATO will pounce and bring on the real war, armed with the excuse to retaliate they can feed to their surveillance state nominal 'democracies' back home. If Assad is smart and he sure seems to be, then the correct reaction to the NATO attack will be to do nothing and instead offer up the usual parade of dead babies to world TV cameras.

And this is where the story gets real shady for me.

Assad by all accounts is not a stupid man. He attended Western universities. He's a trained eye doctor. This at least means he's not a total idiot. Why then would he use nerve gas at a time when the rebel factions aligned against him are fracturing, fighting amongst themselves and losing control of towns? Assad's forces seem to have gained a slight initiative in this war and now suddenly, just as he begins winning, he breaks out chemical weapons and hands NATO the golden invitation to walk into his country?

It just doesn't make sense on the very fundamental level known as common sense.

The things is, who these days is gonna trust the US or UK when they say WMDs are a legit reason to enter a war? It is a fact that chemical weapons exist in Syria but the real issue here is, who used them? It may be hard to believe Assad is that stupid but of course, that does not mean he isn't that stupid. War is not a logical environment and the common sense I mentioned above may not be applicable at all. Maybe Assad felt that by using a terror weapon and getting away with it, that act alone would be a morale shatterer for the rebels and allow his forces to go on the full offensive; knowing that pesky entrenched rebel holdouts could be gassed out of their positions with ease. Maybe Assad was testing the waters to bring about an offensive chemical game changer to end the war decisively? We just can't know and no side in any of this as of this writing seems inclined to deliver definitive proof of who is responsible.

Do not watch the video below if you would prefer to avoid the horrors of nerve gas (NSFL).







Assad's actions after the chemical story broke are telling too. He immediately offered to let UN inspectors in to examine the sites where the chemicals were allegedly used. Obviously, he's studied the West's WMD playbook in Iraq and learned from Saddam that stalling on this issue provides the West with justification for an invasion. Sure, that could be a bluff too, designed to play well with a foreign anti war public; the logic being that he at least tried to prove his innocence but the damn rebels prevented the UN convoy from getting through to the chemical sites. Maybe, he's like the shark in Jaws, either very dumb or very smart... he's gone under the media.

Even the mainstream media are asking these questions now but it is testimony to our times that the precedent for wars without Congressional approval, without UN approval, wars that are illegal under international law; all can happen anyway because of the precedents set in Iraq 2003. Even the will of the majority of the public can be set aside by those in power. Hope and Change was all just a slick marketing campaign. Now we see why Obama didn't go after the Bush Administration and instead made them all immune from prosecution. Another precedent was set... that of total freedom from liability for those who would run the empire and its global proxy resource wars. A freedom from liability the Noble Peace Prize winner himself will avail of when he himself presses the red button on Syria later this week. Obama's defenders will say that the White House did warn that chemical usage was a "redline" moment and the US will look weak if they do not strike punitively as a matter of proving the US point. One thing is for sure it seems and that's that all foreign involvement in Syria just leads to more clusterfuck. Unfortunately, this is the only truth you will find in the Syrian Regional War.


Meanwhile, yesterday in Syria, shit got even more shady. Suddenly, on their way to the nerve gas attack sites, the investigating UN convoy took incoming fire and was forced to retreat before inspecting anything. Let's look at the possibilities here in the absence of cold hard facts.

A) The snipers were Assad's forces trying to stop the UN from discovering the truth behind the usage of nerve gas. Assad invited the UN team in as a ruse, just to seem like an honest broker and then had his snipers shoot up the convoy knowing they would flee. He then blamed the shooting on the rebels and appealed to world anti war sentiment under the idea that he did all he could to try to prove his forces innocent of chemical weapons usage.

B) The snipers were in fact rebel factions trying to prevent the UN from discovering that the rebels themselves were responsible for the gas attack either using stolen chemical artillery shells looted from Assad's arsenals or, worse, chemical weapons supplied from outside Syria by a plethora of possible guilty parties.

C) The snipers were foreign CIA/Mossad/Turkish agents running a covert mission to interdict the UN convoy to stop the inspectors from discovering that the chemical weapons came from foreign sources, were not part of Assad's arsenal and that the rebels perpetrated the attack themselves; all this with the added bonus of confirming the fact that Assad is a callous killer who would fire on unarmed UN inspectors.

D) The snipers are just random assholes. It's a war zone after all. Some dick shot at the convoy because he hates white SUVs, hates his job, hates the war and the guy banging his wife drives a white car so he fired shots and it's all just random mad shit.

One of the above is the truth. But which one?

They say truth is the first casualty in any war so here we go again...



Those blast points, too accurate for sand people?


The impending NATO strike is being presented as a sort of 'slap on the wrist' attack in world media.

To know if this is true, all we will have to do is wait to see what the primary targets for the initial Tomahawk cruise missile strikes will be. The targets designated here will be crucial in figuring out where NATO is planning on taking this war. If most of the targets are X band strikes against Syria's air defense radars than we can be pretty sure this is just the opening salvo and NATO intends to take air superiority over Syria and fill the skies later on with ground support aircraft for the rebels, a Libya part II if you like. However, if the strikes are primarily against Assad himself, his house, his swimming pool, his Bentley, government buildings and some military bases and command and control centers then, that might fit the advertising as a "punitive measure" type attack. Obviously, limited strikes against all of the above will keep NATO intentions muddled for now and will be the probable course of action. But we will still learn a lot from the extent of strikes against Assad's air defense systems. And we'd be foolish to think that the US doesn't have a whole bunch of follow up contingency options waiting in the wings.

Next up, what are the wider geopolitics of this crazy war.

And, by wider geopolitics, I am of course talking Russia and Iran here. I talked a lot about this last time but it's worth repeating. Russia currently has an undisclosed number of assets inside Syria. They have that Mediterranean base at Tartus which they would dearly like to hold. Losing it would be a serious blow to Russian prestige but I'm sure NATO have offered assurances that they have no designs here. The Russians have some Soviet era warships off the coast, some Spetsnaz and paratroopers in country and also an unknown number of technicians helping with the air defense systems. Has the S-300 SAM system been deployed yet? This is a huge question and we don't yet know. Some batteries could be operational and will be operated by Russian technicians. Obviously, the S-300 getting its first combat test v NATO would be popcorn overdose time but most likely the initial strike will involve cruise missiles and maybe, if the US goes exotic, some B2 stealth bombers from mainland US bases.

How will Russia react?

There'll be complaints at the UN and fist waving along with the Chinese. But at this stage of the 21st century everyone knows the Western modus operandi and the juggernaut that is US military power. The corporate empire cannot be deterred by conventional forces and nukes remain off the table because it's just not worth bringing on Armageddon. Yet.






The real question here is what the NATO plan for Syria is.

Is it perpetual chaos in the heart of the Arab world? Because if the West were truly interested in stability in Syria than the dirty little secret of this war might be that Assad would be the best option for that. Let the Arab strongman continue his authoritarian dictatorship not because it's expedient or moral or even right, but because the alternatives are far worse. Just look at Egypt in the aftermath of Mubarak as an object lesson on how things can go wrong without a bad guy on the payroll. The Arabs just don't do democracy and voting booths. In the wake of Assad's demise, what would a post war Syria look like? It would look like another Civil War but this time on bath salts with multiple factions fighting each other, Druze, Alawites, Christians, FSA, Al-Nusra Islamic radicals, Kurds, Al-Qaeda franchise elements, Hezbollah, Iranian militias, Sunni factions, ex Assad Syrian Army hold-ons all clawing each other's faces off for power. The civilian slaughter and genocide could go off the charts.

But here's the dark side for Western war planners. Once you ditch the morality of fomenting a failed state you also by default neuter it. It's teeth are gone. It's ability to project power evaporates from its neighbor's borders. All this chaos would mean the end of Syria as a contiguous state and would remove it as a threat to Israel, Turkey and Jordan and end its alliance with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran to the West. It would knock Russian influence out of the Middle East. Hezbollah would find itself with a far more difficult supply chain for rocketry to aim at Israel and Iran would find itself fully isolated and surely the next domino to fall.

So now perhaps the benefits of attack emerge however tenuously. Total destabilization. Chaos. A very scary course of action surely with many unforeseeable outcomes but obviously viewed as containable from Western war planner's madcap Dr Strangelove rooms.

In fact, examined on these terms, NATO's impending intervention in Syria starts to make some kind of strategic sense when you take in the big picture... total Western hegemony of the last easily extractable oil on the planet. Lessening reliance on tar sands and its low EROEI numbers and high costs-to-refine, nothing but sweet crude sitting just under desert sands in Iraq and Iran and the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. Syria barely has any oil but it is a linchpin state in the region. Damascus is the historic heart of Arabia. Maybe we've reached the stage where such chaos is desirable and that's a very scary place to be just 13 years into the new century. Hegemony via chaos is a risky game.

This is a big war and it's happening live on your TV for reasons far removed from a whiff of nerve gas. If Assad takes his medicine and does not retaliate (his best move) we have the possibility of continued stalemate. The fire could all die down and be forgotten in a week or it could flare up and consume more forest. It's been a long hot summer. And the desert is dry and ripe for flames.

Grab popcorn. And stay tuned.

[Grit]

Seriously, what the fuck is going on. This isn't even an isolationist vs interventionist political battle. There isn't even a vote to go to war here. Chemical weapon use is banned by the Geneva convention which puts responsibility in the UN security councils hands. I bet they need a vote too.

[Cattle Rustler]

(08-28-2013 11:46 AM)Grit Wrote:  

Seriously, what the fuck is going on. This isn't even an isolationist vs interventionist political battle. There isn't even a vote to go to war here. Chemical weapon use is banned by the Geneva convention which puts responsibility in the UN security councils hands. I bet they need a vote too.

They could vote, but then someone could say "to hell with it, suck my balls" and attack Syria.....remember Iraq and A-Stan?

[Sherman]

DEJA VU

'Irrefutable' -- the Washington Post on Colin Powell's Iraq Presentation to the United Nations

"AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-r...ed-nations

[SexyBack]

And there will be a vote later today which will be veto'd probably by both China and Russia rendering the security council once again ineffective in western eyes, which makes the UK, US and France feel they tried what they could and it's time to press ahead.

The way I see it, you can complain about war mongering west all day long. If either Russia or Assad himself were interested in stopping this they'd show some initiative. Russia could say, okay time out. We're sending our foreign secretary to Syria tonight to talk Assad into giving up his weapons and accepting international monitors. Or Assad himself could come out and say, okay, look, I didn't order this. This is where my weapons are at, please just come and frigging take them away, I don't want them anymore they're just a huge headache.

But no, instead they're gambling yet again on western public opinion and democracy, something they themselves don't believe in for their own countries but for some ludicrous reason they do believe that democratic values will prevent them from being knocked on their asses. Well, good luck to them.

In fact the russians have accepted they backed the wrong horse. They're already evacuating their naval base in Tartus. They probably have assurance from NATO to use a different port or be allowed to use it again in future.

[scorpion]

(08-28-2013 02:36 AM)SexyBack Wrote:  

Have to say, the amount of conspiracy vomit seemingly educated people are eager to gobble up never ceases to amaze me.

No one wants to get involved in Syria. It's a powder keg and we've had enough costly inteventions in muslim countries recently to know the ROI is not worth the trouble. These guys never get their shit together even after you point them in the right direction, give them a bunch of money and show great leniency. That ship has sailed.

Regardless, some shit you just can't let slide, and willfully using nerve gas against civilians is not on. And it shouldn't be. I don't know where you guys grew up but my grandfather and great-uncles all went to war over tyrants comitting genocide. What's changed? Did you see all those suffering children? Do you think they're plastic dolls?

Have we become so afraid to offend the Russians and Chinese that we're not going to stand up for what we believe in and enforce our bounderies? Regardless of what the west does these days half of our own population is always blaming ourselves for action as well as inaction. If anything, that is a tell-tale sign of a declining hegemony. But until we fully get there, I'm in favour of sending an unambiguous message to those who did this.

You're pretty much the definition of a useful idiot if you actually believe this. You're being manipulated by governments and the media. The West is not "standing up" for anything. The West could not possibly give less of a shit about a few hundred dead Syrians who died in a gas attack. You literally seem to have a childlike conception of the way the world works.

"Those guys are EVIL! We have to stop them!"

How about this: if you're so in favor of sending an "unambiguous message" to Assad, why don't you pack your bags and head to Syria yourself? I'm sure the rebels would love to have a Westerner they can parade around for PR, like happened in Libya.

There's nothing worse than some armchair chickenhawk (chickenshit, more accurately) talking tough and calling for other men to inflict violence on his behalf. In your case though, it's actually more pathetic than contemptible, because you really seem completely deluded about what's actually going on.

You should stop posting. You're either an idiot, a troll, or a globalist shill. I'm thinking it's more likely a combination of the latter two, given your reg date and lack of post history. Kind of funny how you just pop out of nowhere and start spouting all this bullshit in one thread.

[dk902]

[SexyBack]

Damn, a whole barrage of insults just because i have a different understanding of world politics to your own? You're entitled to your opinion, and I have my own. Sure makes me wonder though, what happened to all that democratic fairness, equality and morality you're so intent on safekeeping if you can't accept an opinion different to your own?

Feel free to enlighten me about what you think is really going on in the world.

But telling people to quite posting just because you disagree is poor form indeed. You have to be big enough to admit you've done yourself a disservice there.

[scorpion]

(08-28-2013 12:52 PM)SexyBack Wrote:  

Damn, a whole barrage of insults just because i have a different understanding of world politics to your own? You're entitled to your opinion, and I have my own. Sure makes me wonder though, what happened to all that democratic fairness, equality and morality you're so intent on safekeeping if you can't accept an opinion different to your own?

Feel free to enlighten me about what you think is really going on in the world.

But telling people to quite posting just because you disagree is poor form indeed. You have to be big enough to admit you've done yourself a disservice there.

You don't have a "different" understanding. You have no understanding. You're just spouting government talking points straight out of John Kerry's mouth. Your interpretation of events is literally at the most shallow level possible: believe everything you hear from authority figures and start repeating it as fact. You're demonstrating a capacity for reasoning and interpreting information at the level of an elementary school child who sees the world completely in black and white. So given that you're basically just regurgitating White House talking points, it stands to reason that you're either: 1) An imbecile incapable of independent thought, or 2) A troll/shill.

Either way your posts have zero value.

[SexyBack]

Let me ask you this, are you the designated authority on this forum tasked with determining what value my posts have? Can a third party please confirm this. Otherwise all I'm receiving from you is a whole load of needless insults and the static that you are convinced what the world seems like isn't what it really is. Now I don't have a problem with you seeing it that way, I don't see any pressing reason why you take such grave offence with me seeing things my way.

You know what I don't get about conspiracy theorists and those of you that see the truth. This shit comes around ever couple of years. Someone schmuck somewhere oversteps, US/UK tells em to stop. Russia and whoever always opposes intervention. It happens regardless. The press loves it. Armageddon and Vietnam are always foretold. After a few months everything calms down. We all forget. The schmuck who overstepped usually has gone away, either right away or during some kind of political process. Nothing really changes for the better or worse on the ground.

In a few years from now you nor I will remember this conversation. A couple of days of airraids won't change the course of history. It'll make for a 2 screen wikipedia entry.