Revolution in the middle east Page 76

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

  • reggy72 1 Sep 2013 18:29:23 332 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    But if they were itching that badly, why wait this long? They do their arms trading all the time anyway.

    I'm not disputing, I'm just curious about the arguments.
    Well it seems the evidence is shaky at best, Kerry's recent speech wasn't all that convincing to say the least with words such as "we believe" etc which speaks of speculation.

    The situation here reminds me a lot of the supposed WMD's that Iraq was supposed to have had that never materialised, but nevertheless Bush and Blair wanted their war and they got it.

    Why they are not doing nothing just as of yet? well Syria would receive the full backing of Iran and possibly Russia if America strikes, and lets face it, the American war machine is stretched across the globe and by some accounts fatigued to the point of breaking, that any action in Syria would not be the push over that was Iraq.
    Obama backed himself into this corner, he drew a line in the sand which I bet he now regrets, any military intervention would have to be decisive, a few days of cruise missile strikes will achieve nothing. If he backs down on this also then it will weaken the US stance and perceived power across the globe.

    Their is potentially too much at stake here now, this could go from regional issue to a full blown fuckfest, really quick.

    Edited by reggy72 at 18:32:48 01-09-2013
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 18:38:40 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The military respinse to the kiling of over a thousand with a WMD reminds you of the war to find WMDs which didn't exist?
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 18:40:06 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You may also want to note that the US military has completely pulled out of Iraq and is no longer in combat in Afghanistan while its budget continues to climb.

    I think they can spare a few missile boats and some support aircraft.
  • LetsGo 1 Sep 2013 18:41:29 5,450 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    So did anyone bomb the US when they used Napalm in Vietnam?
  • reggy72 1 Sep 2013 19:22:50 332 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Post deleted
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 19:23:12 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    No. Why would they have?
  • reggy72 1 Sep 2013 19:26:44 332 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    No. Why would they have?
    or how about agent orange? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 19:34:58 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    What about it?

    When was the last time you were bombed for spraying weed killer?

    I do wonder if there were arguments back in the day against Britain not bothering to liberate Nazi concentration camps because of the Boer War. I don't wonder for long as people didn't seem to be so hamfistedly retarded back then.
  • LetsGo 1 Sep 2013 19:47:01 5,450 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Napalm not regarded as a chemical attack?!
  • FWB 1 Sep 2013 19:50:57 45,613 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Using America's conduct in Vietnam as a yard stick isn't the greatest of arguments. They were dicks for doing it and if they did it now would get lambasted.
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 19:50:58 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    In the same way as explosives would be...
  • reggy72 1 Sep 2013 19:51:46 332 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Agent Orange

    "Vietnamese babies, deformed and stillborn after prenatal dioxin exposure from Agent Orange
    The Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects.[56] According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[1] Women had higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, as did livestock such as cattle, water buffalo"

    I think you'll find it a little potent and quite insulting to call it a weed killer. especially the 22 million gallons the yanks used in Vietnam

    Edited by reggy72 at 20:10:12 01-09-2013

    Or how about when America was best buddies with Saddam Hussain during the Iran/Iraq war, the CIA supplied the intel for Saddam to unleash his chemical weapons against Iranian combatants http://news.sky.com/story/1133393/saddams-chemical-attacks-on-iran-aided-by-us
    Although the UK during its 200 year empire committed plenty of atrocities which resulted in some cases of mass genocide ,which is certainly nothing to be proud of, the thought of the US as some sort of moral compass is frankly sickening

    Edited by reggy72 at 20:27:27 01-09-2013
  • Deleted user 1 September 2013 19:52:42
    LetsGo wrote:
    Napalm not regarded as a chemical attack?!
    The Ban against chemical weapons was only signed and effective in the 90's. It wasn't right, i agree, but i don't think you can compare the two. We were invovled in a cold war, where we expected to be invovled in chemical warfare if we ever got attacked, and vice versa on the russian side.
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 19:55:03 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Go squirt some weed killer into your lungs, see how much of the warning label you can read before you die.
  • LetsGo 1 Sep 2013 20:05:21 5,450 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    joelstinton wrote:
    LetsGo wrote:
    Napalm not regarded as a chemical attack?!
    The Ban against chemical weapons was only signed and effective in the 90's. It wasn't right, i agree, but i don't think you can compare the two. We were invovled in a cold war, where we expected to be invovled in chemical warfare if we ever got attacked, and vice versa on the russian side.
    Sorry, I don't know much about it, but what was the agreement the PM was talking about on Friday which was made after WW1?! I thought that was about chemical weapons too?
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 20:09:41 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Try google or wiki if you actually give a fuck.
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 21:37:45 24,248 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Pointing out Western hypocrisy doesn't really change anything, sadly. It doesn't change Syria, in any way.
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 21:38:43 24,248 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    reggy72 wrote:
    the thought of the US as some sort of moral compass is frankly sickening
    What's more sickening, is that the US is probably the best of a bad job as a world police. Don't try the alternatives.
  • Rodney 1 Sep 2013 22:55:58 1,929 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    The military respinse to the kiling of over a thousand with a WMD reminds you of the war to find WMDs which didn't exist?
    The circumstances are different but the US/UK pre-empting independent reports and asserting guilt is similar
  • Deleted user 2 September 2013 17:19:10
    Syria hasn't signed the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    So: attacking Syria because it has (allegedly) used chemical weapons - effectively amounts to harming a country on the basis that it has (ostensibly) employed weapons that it approves of instead of what other countries approve of. In other words: you must be punished because you decided to follow your own principles, and not ours.


    Don't try the alternatives.

    Why not? I'd argue that USSR was far more a force for good in the world than the USA (it defeated the Nazis, liberated Manchuria, supported independence movements in the Third World, backed India and Vietnam when they put an end to genocides in East Bengal and Cambodia respectively, etc..) Similarly, maybe the Chinese (who are far more intelligent than the Yanks) will do a much better job - they've certainly managed their economy and foreign policy with much greater skill.

    Edited by EndlessSolitude at 17:26:10 02-09-2013
  • FWB 2 Sep 2013 17:24:29 45,613 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'd argue that USSR was far more a force for good in the world than the USA
    Are you serious?
  • Khanivor 2 Sep 2013 17:27:04 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    They did sign on to the Geneva Protocol banning their use over 40 years ago, so there is that.

    In other words, holding them up to the standards they hold themselves to.

    But why debate with someone who holds the USSR as a paragon of virtue.

    /waits for FWB
  • Khanivor 2 Sep 2013 17:27:17 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Didn't have to wait long :)
  • Deleted user 2 September 2013 17:27:49
    Are you serious?
    Yes
  • FWB 2 Sep 2013 17:29:56 45,613 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You are in a warped world of your own. I'm not going to defend everything the US has done, but it is completely ludicrous to suggest that we would generally be better under the Soviets.

    Did you actually experience the wonderful Soviet State?

    Edited by FWB at 17:32:47 02-09-2013
  • TheSaint 2 Sep 2013 17:37:26 14,829 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    These threads always need a nutter to really get going.
  • Deleted user 2 September 2013 17:38:49
    Did you actually experience the wonderful Soviet State?
    My country had better relations with the USSR than the USA for the duration of the Cold War: I only regret that the Soviets didn't win it.

    However, I wasn't sufficiently fortunate to 'experience' a state that had full employment as well as a full-fledged social welfare system (with both health care and education provided on the basis of need rather than purchasing power). Those of us who come from the Third World looked up to the USSR, and could only hope to attain what it had achieved.
  • dominalien 2 Sep 2013 17:40:22 7,065 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • FWB 2 Sep 2013 17:40:44 45,613 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You are a nutter.

    Having experienced and had a family that suffered under it, it was far from pleasant. It was shit. And your romantic notions of it are not only ignorant, but dangerous.
  • Khanivor 2 Sep 2013 17:42:07 41,262 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    EndlessSolitude wrote:
    Are you serious?
    Yes
    Can you explain how that word salad backs up your assertion?
  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

Log in or register to reply