EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 101
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On September 01 2013 02:29 Taguchi wrote: Don't get me wrong here, I interpret the rest of the world's democracies' voting procedures in a similar fashion. If it's important to the elite, it's gonna happen anyway. If no one really cares, suddenly democracy functions properly. Cynical yes, but it is what it is. And I don't want to derail into Iraq, but 'solid'? There were no WMDs, what on earth could have been 'solid' about it? Do not tell me the house were tricked when the rest of the world, who happened to not give a rat's ass about Iraq, were strongly opposed to any intervention without actual evidence of wrongdoing, and said so at the time. Sorry, bad choice of words. What I meant was the intelligence was not to blame, Blair kept it secret and lied about what it actually said. This is not the case this time. Read the vote for yourself and decide how it is framing the military issue. But let's be clear any military action would have taken a second vote. | ||
Noam
Israel2209 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ameiNDm.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BpnOOCT.png) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On September 01 2013 02:55 Derez wrote: Watch Obama's presidency implode after this lol. Feckless, powerless leader. Quite the prognostication. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
HeartOfTheSwarm
Niue585 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Qewp96O.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KQXCx92.png) | ||
|
beg
991 Posts
if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare. are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On September 01 2013 02:55 Derez wrote: Watch Obama's presidency implode after this lol. Feckless, powerless leader. I liked Obama, but no president should be able to get away with spying on the entire country. If he's not impeached, then future leaders won't be afraid to also implement big brother programs. The NSA scandal is reason enough to impeach him and enough to surely never trust him, or the US government again. At least until different leadership is established. Obama needs to be held accountable. Thats the job. When the facts changed, my opinion changed! Impeach Obama, stay out of Syria! + Show Spoiler + Nixon resigned for spying on one hotel room, Clinton was impeached for lying one time......Obama has a copy of every email you ever sent and a database on everyone American. If he doesn't than the people are truly the feckless ones. | ||
|
TriO
United States421 Posts
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please... if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare. are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it. Welcome to the social media world where you see stupidity at its finest. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On August 31 2013 22:35 Ghanburighan wrote: No. No they do not have to be about anything else. This time they CW attack was on a larger scale and with more evidence regarding the type of chemicals and the culprits. They literally shot the CW shells a few miles from where the UN team to assess PREVIOUS CW attacks was housed. Had the UN team found evidence of prior CW use, the same problem (for the IC) would have arisen (it was just very unlikely). Also Obama's red line on CW use is currently very salient. We don't give a flying fuck about CWs or not. We just want a "valid" excuse to attack them, something we've failed to gain over the past 2 years. After we killed millions of Viet civilians with chemical weapons (which had an insane backlash in the US during the Vietnam war) and other gruesome forms of warfare, I guess the govt. expected everyone to be in an uproar about Assad using them against the Islamists. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Either the strikes are in the national interest, as he claimed before, and he does it, or they're not and the issue doesn't even have to come before congress. And what do you think is going to happen if congress returns in a week from now and the media frenzy + public interest around Syria has died down? He doesn't even try to lead, he just changes his mind every day. Yesterday, great idea, has to happen straight away and today were gonna sit on it for another freaking week? | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
On September 01 2013 03:17 beg wrote: ok, guys, clarify this for me, please... if you wanna attack another country, is it strategically ok to declare this publicly? i mean, the enemy can prepare. he will know you want to attack. he will have several days to prepare. are governments really doing it this way? i have such a hard time believing it. In cases like these I don't think it really matters, the countries that get "the treatment" have no means of defending against it anyway. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 01 2013 03:24 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: We don't give a flying fuck about CWs or not. We just want a "valid" excuse to attack them, something we've failed to gain over the past 2 years. After we killed millions of Viet civilians with chemical weapons (which had an insane backlash in the US during the Vietnam war) and other gruesome forms of warfare, I guess the govt. expected everyone to be in an uproar about Assad using them against the Islamists. Don't argue based on your own (uneducated) opinions. Contribute actual input from credible sources. Your "flying fuck" theory holds no water based on what literally everyone in the diplomatic community is saying. + Show Spoiler [misleading on Vietnam] + Christopher Busby, an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation and Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, said it was important to make the distinction that defoliants such as Agent Orange are not anti-personnel weapons designed to kill or deform people, and are thus “not quite the same as using a nerve gas or something that is intended against personnel.” | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
Real question is: What does that really tell us about Obama? | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On September 01 2013 03:33 DragoonPK wrote: So it's: I decided to attack, I can attack, but I will wait and let the Congress decide in 2 weeks. Real question is: What does that really tell us about Obama? Its good news, it tells us he's afraid of public outrage. He's yet to unleash his true inner-dictator. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
For conspiracy minded people (myself included), this is a strong indicator that the same "shadow" government is in control. Their agenda persists beyond who the actual president is. IMHO. Pre-2008 Obama and Kerry would have been seen as pacifists. Kerry even spoke out against war crimes in Vietnam. How it is possible they so quickly become Bush and Cheney? It really boggles the mind, its scary. It means that taking Obama down won't be enough to change anything. | ||
| ||
