Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Scoops Novel]

Did i say I'm English?

[Owlbread]

You may as well have.

[misko27]

The amount of Europeanism occuring in this thread will cause a Bald Eagle to spontaneously combust if it continues. You Have Been Warned.


So, to move from Syria-centric to the US in a coherent matter, Obama has put Military action on Congressional approval, and I have heard nothing on how that might go. Presumably well, since he has democratic and some republican support? I don't really know. Might be a toss-up.

[Solifuge]

Alright not going to war without congressional approval this time!

Spoiler: This calls for 500ccs of Patriotism (click to show/hide)

[Mrhappyface]

I doubt it. Twelve years of war fatigue tend to play a large factor in not wanting to support this.

[Sheb]

But then, a lot of congressmen have been pushing him to do something. They don't want to look weak. Will be interesting, as the split is really bi-partisans. I expect most but not all of the democrats to fall in line behind the prez, but the Republican party seems to be split between McCainesque war hawks and Paul-like islationists. And of course those that will say the US is aiding Islamists (which is not even wrong: Al-Qaeda said they'd support a US strike).

[Helgoland]

German media reported that most Islamists are very afraid of a US air strike, fearing that they themselves might be targeted.

I hope they will - we messed up in 2011, now we should help clean up the mess we at the very least didn't prevent. Support for moderates, including direct military aid. Anything short of that would be nothing more than a fig leaf to mask the West's inactivity.

[ggamer]

This whole mess is a rather fucking giant headache for American government, considering the entire world community was egging us on to take some sort of action, and then pulled their support at the last minute. Shit, David Cameron might face a vote of no confidence because the parliament refused to go to war.

We've seen that Obama knows how to wage a short, cost-effective war of support. Now we need him to do it on a bigger scale.

The only thing i'm concerned about is the rumors that Syrian officials are bussing in villagers to surround their bunkers in the hopes that when the USN shells them into 1943 they can manipulate the world community into thinking that the USN was attacking civilian populations. Kerry, of course, is telling us that they will make sure not to hit these decoy sites.

But I, and all of America, have seen just how useful even moderately outdated intelligence is in despotic countries. Which is to say, about as useful as Syria's economy will be if we're not careful about our shelling.

[JackOSpades]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbAdYA55w4

when we Invade Syria We won't be fighting just Syrians we'll be fighting the Russians and Chinese as well due to mutual defense treaties. Sound familiar? if not try to remember what made WWI a World War. if this fact doesn't have you utterly terrified then you should think harder about the three major countries involved. US Nuclear Superpower, Russia Nuclear Superpower, China Nuclear Superpower even if it starts as conventional warfare the minuet one side starts losing (probably the US as its 2vs1.) the Nukes WILL come out.
so basically to stop the use of chemical warfare on some people We'll Nuke EVERYONE? WTF that's insane why are we even discussing this?
because this has nothing to do with chemical warfare, Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's(they had none) and Afganistan had nothing to do with "Terrorism". So what IS really going on here?

War. War never changes.

The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.

But war never changes.

In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: Petroleum and Uranium. -Opening of Fallout 1

Silly right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZK5gRLJ9h0&list=PL37268FF980592720
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KAj8O8qes&list=PL37268FF980592720

Economic collapse? dollar nearing the end of it's lifespan? shaping the new currency? what does it all even mean?

Economics 101: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8

[ggamer]

Jack, I have to thank you for that well-articulated post where you quoted Fallout. Allow me to refute:

This will be my reference

Russia has deep economic interests in Syria, as well as a very hypocritical ideological stance about the American war machine. However, if they were to use nuclear weapons, it would not be in their own best interest, seeing as how it would destroy the fucking world economy, which Russia sort of relies on to do anything. Russia may be a bit unstable right now, but they're doing far better than who we should be worried about.

Iran is dominated by a Shiite government, as is Syria. Simply put, Iran stands to lose its most important ally in the middle east if the US intervenes and the Sunni rebels overtake the government. This government is the one we should be worried about, but mainly more for its threats of war than any nuclear capability.

China is playing the Gendo Ikari in this situation, simply waiting to see if the situation plays out in its favor. China is the least likely out of all nations to respond with military action, let alone nuclear weapons.

Lebanon/Jordan are making threats of war/sanctions etc. etc., basically it's Tuesday for the Israeli Defense Force.

Now allow me to remind you, and everyone here, that HOLY SHIT CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE FUCKING BAAAAAD

The UN has banned chemical weapons for a reason. The effects of their usage go beyond horrifying, mustard gas causes your fucking skin to blister. Nerve agents cause all of your muscles to contract, including such vital muscles as fucking everything, slowly cutting off airflow and asphyxiating whoever is caught in the blast radius. Which, if the winds are unfavorable, could be a lot of fucking people.

tl;dr don't link to conspiracy playlists next time you try to make a point broheim

[GreatJustice]

Jack, I have to thank you for that well-articulated post where you quoted Fallout. Allow me to refute:

This will be my reference

Russia has deep economic interests in Syria, as well as a very hypocritical ideological stance about the American war machine. However, if they were to use nuclear weapons, it would not be in their own best interest, seeing as how it would destroy the fucking world economy, which Russia sort of relies on to do anything. Russia may be a bit unstable right now, but they're doing far better than who we should be worried about.

Iran is dominated by a Shiite government, as is Syria. Simply put, Iran stands to lose its most important ally in the middle east if the US intervenes and the Sunni rebels overtake the government. This government is the one we should be worried about, but mainly more for its threats of war than any nuclear capability.

China is playing the Gendo Ikari in this situation, simply waiting to see if the situation plays out in its favor. China is the least likely out of all nations to respond with military action, let alone nuclear weapons.

Lebanon/Jordan are making threats of war/sanctions etc. etc., basically it's Tuesday for the Israeli Defense Force.

Now allow me to remind you, and everyone here, that HOLY SHIT CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE FUCKING BAAAAAD

The UN has banned chemical weapons for a reason. The effects of their usage go beyond horrifying, mustard gas causes your fucking skin to blister. Nerve agents cause all of your muscles to contract, including such vital muscles as fucking everything, slowly cutting off airflow and asphyxiating whoever is caught in the blast radius. Which, if the winds are unfavorable, could be a lot of fucking people.

tl;dr don't link to conspiracy playlists next time you try to make a point broheim

Stupid forum deleted my post. I'll rewrite later.

[Helgoland]

Jack, I have to thank you for that well-articulated post where you quoted Fallout. Allow me to refute:

This will be my reference

Russia has deep economic interests in Syria, as well as a very hypocritical ideological stance about the American war machine. However, if they were to use nuclear weapons, it would not be in their own best interest, seeing as how it would destroy the fucking world economy, which Russia sort of relies on to do anything. Russia may be a bit unstable right now, but they're doing far better than who we should be worried about.

Iran is dominated by a Shiite government, as is Syria. Simply put, Iran stands to lose its most important ally in the middle east if the US intervenes and the Sunni rebels overtake the government. This government is the one we should be worried about, but mainly more for its threats of war than any nuclear capability.

China is playing the Gendo Ikari in this situation, simply waiting to see if the situation plays out in its favor. China is the least likely out of all nations to respond with military action, let alone nuclear weapons.

Lebanon/Jordan are making threats of war/sanctions etc. etc., basically it's Tuesday for the Israeli Defense Force.

Now allow me to remind you, and everyone here, that HOLY SHIT CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE FUCKING BAAAAAD

The UN has banned chemical weapons for a reason. The effects of their usage go beyond horrifying, mustard gas causes your fucking skin to blister. Nerve agents cause all of your muscles to contract, including such vital muscles as fucking everything, slowly cutting off airflow and asphyxiating whoever is caught in the blast radius. Which, if the winds are unfavorable, could be a lot of fucking people.

tl;dr don't link to conspiracy playlists next time you try to make a point broheim

[misko27]

Actually I heard Hezbollah is pretty moderate in terms of angry threats from Middle eastern powers, saying they want to see how much damage there is and how intense it is. They are sorta in the same boat as Saudi Arabia and friends, they are very close to it, and would prefer to remain officially out of it as much as possible. Hezbollah chose to enter into it, and there has been a increasingly large amount of bombings in Lebanon targeted at Shiites and Hezbollah. They realize there's a cost, a physical cost in their people's lives, and are treading rather carefully about more.

Iran and Syria however are threatening attacks, though that is highly unlikely.


Anyway, Kerry said that the Chemical weapon used was Sarin, and has said Obama maintains the right to use military force even if Congress rules against it. Foreign Policy pretty much is the only thing the President really controls totally. He can't invade on his own, but he can do everything short of it. A bill authorizing force is being mended and amended in the Senate right now.

[ggamer]

Actually I heard Hezbollah is pretty moderate in terms of angry threats from Middle eastern powers, saying they want to see how much damage there is and how intense it is. They are sorta in the same boat as Saudi Arabia and friends, they are very close to it, and would prefer to remain officially out of it as much as possible. Hezbollah chose to enter into it, and there has been a increasingly large amount of bombings in Lebanon targeted at Shiites and Hezbollah. They realize there's a cost, a physical cost in their people's lives, and are treading rather carefully about more.

Iran and Syria however are threatening attacks, though that is highly unlikely.


Anyway, Kerry said that the Chemical weapon used was Sarin, and has said Obama maintains the right to use military force even if Congress rules against it. Foreign Policy pretty much is the only thing the President really controls totally. He can't invade on his own, but he can do everything short of it. A bill authorizing force is being mended and amended in the Senate right now.

The president is completely within his rights to send troops into Syria for a period of no more than 90 days under the war powers act. However, by allowing Congress to control the declaration, Obama is getting the figurative support of his people before he starts shelling the balls off of Syria.

I'm rather surprised to see Hezbollah being conservative in this situation. Still, that means one less ass Israel has to kick.

[JackOSpades]

thank you ggamer for your rebuttal, yes 2 of the videos I linked were from a "conspiracy playlist" while you attempted to portray that in a negative light I note that you left off the word crazy. There is a world of difference between a conspiracy theory and a crazy conspiracy theory. without the crazy added on a conspiracy theory is simply a Theory that their exists a Conspiracy as such like other types of Theory until they are conclusively proven or disproven they should be judged based on the existing evidence and basic logic. (to be clear the other two videos we're #1 a re-brodcast of a news clip with no extra commentary. and #4 a documentary on Economics.)

As for the article you linked in your rebuttal I read it and watched the video several times and I honestly have to question whether or not we read and watched the same thing. the article itself outlined the positions on the other side it's quite literally a point by point list of why Russia, China, and Iran will come to Syria's defense should the US Invade.
The video Is about a UN resolution proposing a Diplomatic solution on this issue being Vetoed by Russia and China
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/world/meast/syria-china-russia-relations
http://euobserver.com/defence/121237 so Russia and China are still seeking a diplomatic solution while the US, UK, France are signed on to Attack WITHOUT UN SANCTION.
I don't know if your aware but failed diplomacy doesn't usually mean the prevention of war... Actually it most often has the opposite meaning FYI

Russia has deep economic interests in Syria, as well as a very hypocritical ideological stance about the American war machine. However, if they were to use nuclear weapons, it would not be in their own best interest, seeing as how it would destroy the fucking world economy, which Russia sort of relies on to do anything. Russia may be a bit unstable right now, but they're doing far better than who we should be worried about.

Really? Interesting they are certainly willing to go to war over this issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtG92ZTCvQ
I'd also like to note that this was posted in Febuary namely Feb. 6 a full month before the US had a "reason" to Invade.
the gas attack was in Aug

See your arguing that neither Russia nor China want war with the US nuclear or otherwise and this is true, but what I think you fail to grasp is that We are the ones Attacking them and their allies, to put it simply in this World War that's in the making this time around WE are playing the part of Germany.
Incidentally from the article from the EUobserver this time around Germany is having no part in this one, 2 losses we're enough it seems.

Germany has indicated its military will not get involved, but has given Britain and France its political support.

And There is No Argument that chemical weapons are bad, the question is Who used them? to that I reply Cui bono?  ("to whose benefit?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono)
Does it benefit the Syrian government to use Gas on the rebels after being warned by the US not to or we would attack? they have of course denied that they were responsible. there are better ways of dealing with rebels aren't there? and It doesn't seem like being Invaded by the US would be a good thing does it?
Does it benefit the Rebels to use gas? quite possibly, however the US Invasion is clearly targeted at the government of Syria who would in this case be the victims. this would be tantamount to reporting a robbery to the police and having them come and arrest you for being robbed.
Does it Benefit the US? does Invading and disposing the current regime of Syria benefit the US? think carefully now would the US benefit from removing a major trading partner and significant oil supplier to Russia and China?

So Again Cui bono?