PDA

View Full Version : Prepare for Assault World War Three?



elevenism
08-30-2013, 07:21 PM
So....it looks like we will strike Syria...who is backed by, ahem, China and Russia...Hmmmm...

SM Rollinger
08-30-2013, 07:28 PM
Not good. Alliances like this have proved disastrous in the past.

WW1 was started when Russia mobilized in response to Austria/Hungry declaring war on Serbia. (it wasn't until after that did Germany mobilize. contrary to popular opinion that Germany was somehow solely responsible for the war. but thats another debate...)

elevenism
08-30-2013, 07:31 PM
So like...i hate to say this...but im actually kinda...VERY...disturbed by this. we have a bomb shelter here in the texas panhandle and the family is here...we are cleaning it out....
im...for me, i don't think it's our business to fuck with Syria...but my lil bro made a good point...we cant exactly tell motherfuckers "if you do this, we will bomb you..." and then NOT bomb them....dangerous precedent...

elevenism
08-30-2013, 07:33 PM
so might it go straight Year Zero/Mad Max up in this motherfucker?

elevenism
08-30-2013, 07:40 PM
it looks pretty nasty to me...i can't believe no one else here is talking about this...or did i miss a thread?
if i'm not mistaken, this shit IS happening...we WILL attack Syria.
If we do that, Iran has promised a strike on Israel....
Syria, again, backed by russia...china....
and it would appear that we're on our own here..

Deepvoid
08-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Russia is, as we speak, moving two additional warships to the Mediterranean sea. A missile cruiser and a large anti-submarine ship.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSL6N0GU1B420130829

allegro
08-30-2013, 09:06 PM
China has a "do not interfere" policy. They aren't a threat to us. Nor will they support us.

miss k bee
08-31-2013, 05:26 AM
I am glad Parliament over here voted against military intervension and told David Cameron to sit the fuck down basically.
What is happening in Syria is horrible and I am all for humanitarian support for refugees and civilians. The situation is Syria is so complicated I don't think military action will do anything but make it worse.
Because of the UK voting against action apparently the 'special relationship' between the UK and US is over now, so bye y'all!

allegro
08-31-2013, 07:06 AM
But the Obama administration has not yet agreed to do anything, yet, either, so don't jump so fast. Secretary of State Kerry stated we will make no move without a concrete, sensible plan.

Deepvoid
08-31-2013, 07:50 AM
Why do you think boots are out of the question? Because they know damn well they are gonna shot at from both sides. They do not have any allies there.

allegro
08-31-2013, 12:58 PM
I'm really on the fence about this. Gassing nearly 500 innocent children is intolerable. On the other hand, not sure that our doing anything will stop or prevent it. But then I remember how we did nothing to help millions of Jews for a long time.

Elke
08-31-2013, 01:14 PM
Problem is, there's no clear side to take. I mean yes: the civilian population. But this is an armed conflict, so do you side with the government, the various factions of rebels, neither...? At least with the millions of Jews, there was a clear big bad wolf...

orestes
08-31-2013, 01:25 PM
Exactly. Both sides have blood on their hands so there isn't easy rhetoric, other than "intelligence" that points towards WMDs, for war hawks to sell to the public.

Remember when we invaded Afghanistan for the women?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/30/don_t_call_this_a_humanitarian_intervention?page=f ull

Deepvoid
08-31-2013, 01:42 PM
The Al-Nusra Front is the one of the most powerful faction within the rebel forces. Their ties with Al-Qaeda are undeniable. If Assad gets overthrown, they will most likely take the power. This is a lose-lose situation for the US. I'm not even sure Obama really wants to strike Syria.

However, he dug himself into a hole by drawing red lines here and there. He might have found a way to get out of this hole.
Clearly stated his intentions to use military force. Seek Congress' approval. If they vote against, that's his exit door.

DigitalChaos
08-31-2013, 02:23 PM
The only slightly sane justification I've heard is that it's supposedly about maintaining the fragile structure of the geneva convention. If someone uses chemical weapons without being punished, the "rules of war" start to rapidly fall apart. We've only had a "rules of war" for about 100 years now.

That said, the use of chemical weapons hasn't been very solidly proven and we aren't even sure which side used them. Nobody else in the world seems to want to back us. Additionally, Obama going to war without approval from Congress would be extremely fucked up. Based on what he just said in his talk, it sounds like he is going to ask Congress. I really hope that Congress says no.

allegro
08-31-2013, 03:11 PM
I also have a problem with not KNOWING who used the chemical weapons. And, like Deepvoid said, whomever used them is the "bad guy" - there really are no "good guys" in this power struggle. But, I'm still bothered by the 500 dead kids.

DigitalChaos
08-31-2013, 03:20 PM
Yup. Not to mention, Geneva Convention has a specific mechanism of enforcement. It definitely isn't all up to the USA. That's not at all how it works.

Swykk
08-31-2013, 03:49 PM
Would it kill us to stop being GI JOE and work on our own myriad of problems? Moreover, mind our own fucking business for once.

marodi
08-31-2013, 04:04 PM
Part of this reminds me of the Rwandan Genocide. You know horrific events are taking place but what is there to do: sit back and watch or intervene?

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation.

DigitalChaos
08-31-2013, 04:22 PM
Part of this reminds me of the Rwandan Genocide. You know horrific events are taking place but what is there to do: sit back and watch or intervene?

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation.
Rwanda was handled through the UNSC, as Geneva violations are supposed to be. It wasn't cowboy USA calling all the shots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda

You are a whole lot less "damned" if you follow the process that was set in place for the world to follow.

orestes
08-31-2013, 04:37 PM
And even under the unilateral umm, protection of the UN, shit still happens; i.e. Srebrenica, for example.

Baphomette
08-31-2013, 05:47 PM
Rwanda was handled through the UNSC
The UNSC did nothing. The situation wasn't "handled" and a genocide occurred.

DigitalChaos
08-31-2013, 06:36 PM
The UNSC did nothing. The situation wasn't "handled" and a genocide occurred.

So then let's support the Geneva Conventions by immediately ignoring the process behind them? Wonderful.... Maybe you could team up with the KONY2012 guys and play Team America... cause it's not the role of our military.

Baphomette
08-31-2013, 09:29 PM
So then let's support the Geneva Conventions by immediately ignoring the process behind them?Didn't suggest that at all.

Elke
09-01-2013, 02:39 AM
Rwanda was handled through the UNSC, as Geneva violations are supposed to be. It wasn't cowboy USA calling all the shots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda

You are a whole lot less "damned" if you follow the process that was set in place for the world to follow.

Rwanda desmonstrated quite well why the process is flawed: almost a million people died in the course of one single month, and the UN gave strict instructions to the UNIMAR not to intervene in a military fashion, in other words: not to stop the killings. It's mind boggling that there were international armed forces present in order to help the population and they weren't allowed to save anyone. Tribunals after the fact are too little, too late, and often handled very poorly with hardly any respect for local traditions or any efforts toward reconcilliation.
Note: It's especially sad if you consider that international support for the gorilla population was better organized and more effective than anything drummed up to help the people out.

And if the mechanisms in place to protect the Geneva convention work so well, then why is there still a genocide going on in East-Congo?

I'm not a big fan van Captain America, but I'm also not a big fan of 'let the UN handle it' because the UN has an increasingly poor track record in protecting human rights.
And by human rights, I mean: human lives.

Wretchedest
09-01-2013, 03:02 AM
I have mixed feelings about it. It's hard to sit idly by and know that a government is destroying it's own people. Whether the government used chemical weapons or not is kind of irrelevent to me*, to hear about the shit going down in Syria that last few years has been absolutely depressing. Standing idly by and letting it happen doesn't seem great. On the other hand spending a shit load of money and putting more lives at risk seems also shitty.

*obviously chemical weapons are an especially horrific way to go about things.

On a lighter note, the thread title sounds like the title for the anime version of this....thing. What's up with that?

Mantra
09-01-2013, 03:54 AM
What exactly is the desired outcome of this? We drop the bombs and then...what? Everything in Syria will be better? Is there any genuine planning and foresight beyond this initial "You were bad, so here's your punishment" reaction? I've yet to hear anyone present a list of specific improvements that will result from this.

Sutekh
09-01-2013, 04:44 AM
I am glad Parliament over here voted against military intervension and told David Cameron to sit the fuck down basically.
What is happening in Syria is horrible and I am all for humanitarian support for refugees and civilians. The situation is Syria is so complicated I don't think military action will do anything but make it worse.
Because of the UK voting against action apparently the 'special relationship' between the UK and US is over now, so bye y'all!


It's good we stayed out but we still have US bases all over the UK & we remain an integral part of the US comms network (and as such remain a nuke target), so unfortunately it's not over yet.

this really isn't going to lead to world war 3 though... A russian naval base in the north of syria is important to russia symbolically, but not actually worth risking a nuclear exchange over.

It would be lovely to sort these things out, but the west is in dire financial straits and really haven't we learned that intervention never really works and blowback is inevitable.

i find it funny that most people who support a strike don't have to ride the london underground every morning ;)

DigitalChaos
09-01-2013, 08:26 AM
Rwanda desmonstrated quite well why the process is flawed: almost a million people died in the course of one single month, and the UN gave strict instructions to the UNIMAR not to intervene in a military fashion, in other words: not to stop the killings. It's mind boggling that there were international armed forces present in order to help the population and they weren't allowed to save anyone. Tribunals after the fact are too little, too late, and often handled very poorly with hardly any respect for local traditions or any efforts toward reconcilliation.
Note: It's especially sad if you consider that international support for the gorilla population was better organized and more effective than anything drummed up to help the people out.

And if the mechanisms in place to protect the Geneva convention work so well, then why is there still a genocide going on in East-Congo?

I'm not a big fan van Captain America, but I'm also not a big fan of 'let the UN handle it' because the UN has an increasingly poor track record in protecting human rights.
And by human rights, I mean: human lives.

Of course it's flawed. It's geopolitical politics. There is no perfect answer.

This isn't about "human lives." If it was, where the fuck were you when everyone was getting gunned down? This is about the use of gas... aka WMDs. That's why we only care now. That's why it's what Obama is talking about. That's why we aren't planning on doing anything but a quick attack. We aren't going in there to save lives, we are wanting to punish the use of Sarin gas.

I'm not a fan of the UN but we've decided to be part of it. Obama asks what message it sends to let sarin gas use go unpunished. Well, what message does it send to circumvent the UN? Syria is no threat to the US. We have no business fucking with them on our own without the rest of the world standing behind us. Are you really so arrogant to claim the rest of the world doesn't care and won't even agree with involvement? That's some vigilante shit.

Then there is the part where there isn't anything productive the US could do...

slave2thewage
09-01-2013, 09:12 AM
http://31.media.tumblr.com/43d136fcdb4a90847e2f633e1dcc4dea/tumblr_mf8tsyRgtj1qimo1xo1_500.gif

elevenism
09-01-2013, 09:24 AM
On a lighter note, the thread title sounds like the title for the anime version of this....thing. What's up with that?

What's up with that is that i'm just a fucking goofball. You guys can change the thread title to something more...adult...if you like. I'm 33 going on 8.

Elke
09-01-2013, 02:59 PM
This isn't about "human lives."

Go (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml) educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_II) yourself (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

I'm not idealistic or naive enough to not know that geopolitics isn't about human lives. But human rights are. And an institution like the UN, specifically the UN, was called into existence to protect human rights, and if it isn't protecting human lives, it's not doing its job.
It's outdated, obsolete and corrupt to the core.


Are you really so arrogant to claim the rest of the world doesn't care and won't even agree with involvement? That's some vigilante shit.


What, you mean me personally? I'm Belgian. We're still knee-deep in the murky waters of international diplomacy to get anything at all done about the DRC.

DigitalChaos
09-01-2013, 03:19 PM
Go (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml) educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_II) yourself (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

I'm not idealistic or naive enough to not know that geopolitics isn't about human lives. But human rights are. And an institution like the UN, specifically the UN, was called into existence to protect human rights, and if it isn't protecting human lives, it's not doing its job.
It's outdated, obsolete and corrupt to the core.

Well, since we aren't using the UN for this.... Maybe you should reread my post. Maybe you should listen to Obama, you know, the guy about to jump into Syria.

Maybe if we started using the UN, those awesome links would come into play.



What, you mean me personally? I'm Belgian. We're still knee-deep in the murky waters of international diplomacy to get anything at all done about the DRC.
So your country isn't going to help but you want the USA to get involved. Not much more I can say about that.

KarenLeslie
09-02-2013, 10:19 AM
There was a time when I would have trusted Obama to handle this in the least-horrible way possible, whatever that turns out to be.

That time has passed. Now I'm just scared and depressed. I just, I cannot deal with this, I'm going to go read a billion internet comments about Miley Cyrus or something until my brain shuts down in self-defense.

Elke
09-02-2013, 12:37 PM
you want the USA to get involved

Actually, I don't. And you won't ever find me saying that. I merely stated that relying on the UN because the mechanism is there, is stupid and lazy. It has failed to work for the two biggest genocides in recent history, and it's going to fail to work here. That doesn't mean I'm pro unilateral American action.

DigitalChaos
09-02-2013, 01:40 PM
Actually, I don't. And you won't ever find me saying that. I merely stated that relying on the UN because the mechanism is there, is stupid and lazy. It has failed to work for the two biggest genocides in recent history, and it's going to fail to work here. That doesn't mean I'm pro unilateral American action.

Which is fine. Fix the system or formally pull out. Agreeing to be part of the UN and then ignoring it is dangerous. It's just about as dangerous as letting WMD use happen (or similar high level war crimes) without any punishment. Unilateral action on the world stage is also incredibly dangerous.

I have a feeling that very few in the US will raise these objections if Congress signs off on Obama doing his 2 day strike to slap Syria for possible Sarin use. I'm hoping that Congress says no just like the Brit's Commons did. Congress reps have no responsibility for Syria and public opinion is an overwhelming "NO!"

DigitalChaos
09-02-2013, 01:56 PM
This MSNBC segment was actually an interesting watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4k80kqM3X4

DigitalChaos
09-02-2013, 02:17 PM
Alan Grayson can be a badass sometimes. This is one of them.
(skip to 2:45)
6:50 = high-fucking-five
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d3gGE2gg5g

cahernandez
09-02-2013, 11:20 PM
Alan Grayson can be a badass sometimes. This is one of them.
(skip to 2:45)
6:50 = high-fucking-five
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d3gGE2gg5g

Many A Perfect Circle fans complain about "eMOTIVe" but in times like these this album resonates a lot with me, perfect album for its context (the Iraq war in 2003/2004 and now this potential war with Syria).

Thanks for posting that video, great watch. Sign the Congressman's petition here: http://dontattacksyria.com

Guys, I know Hesitation Marks is coming out tonight/tomorrow in North America but come on! This topic also deserves attention.

allegro
09-03-2013, 11:47 AM
I signed the petition.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2013, 12:02 PM
Here is one more for you. Ben Swann is my absolute favorite indie journalist... hell, journalist in any form. I'm happy to have had a small part in funding this series.

I still need to digest everything he just said because it's all new to me. I also want to run through his sources, even though he is one of the very few journalists that I'd trust without them.

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

Deepvoid
09-03-2013, 02:50 PM
Boehner and Pelosi will support the resolution.

allegro
09-03-2013, 03:14 PM
Boehner and Pelosi will support the resolution.
Of course, no news there.

Deepvoid
09-03-2013, 07:11 PM
Are the Republicans really split on this?
I figured that if it passes the House, the Senate is a formality.

The Iran/Israel situation is also interesting. Israel was clearly sending a message to Iran with this morning's missile drill.
I don't think Iran is crazy enough to act on their threats if the US attack Syria.

allegro
09-03-2013, 08:26 PM
Are the Republicans really split on this?
Actually, most are undecided and quite a few say no.

But now a Fuck Congress proposal is brewing (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/03/218700241/foreign-relations-committee-comes-to-agreement-on-syria?)

Deepvoid
09-03-2013, 09:45 PM
Actually, most are undecided and quite a few say no.

But now a Fuck Congress proposal is brewing (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/03/218700241/foreign-relations-committee-comes-to-agreement-on-syria?)

The link to Lawfare blog is very insightful on explaining how broad this proposal is.
With that being said, broad or not, I don't think Obama is actually looking to literally start WW III.

allegro
09-03-2013, 10:17 PM
Oh, this is precious (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a&Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)

cahernandez
09-04-2013, 10:22 AM
Oh, the irony: Obama promoting a war in the country where he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/obama-sweden/

Deepvoid
09-04-2013, 11:45 AM
Speaking of CNN. They have tallied House and Senate votes so far.

House: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html?hpt=hp_t1
Senate: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/index.html

Edit:

McCain will not support the proposition in its current form. He actually wants to nuke Syria. OK not literally but he wants a more "aggressive" approach.
"McCain wants to see a provision that states U.S. action must be aimed at a "reversal of momentum on the ground."".

War lobbyists are out in full force obviously.

sentient02970
09-04-2013, 01:02 PM
How to fuck up the Middle East more? Jump into the fray with guns blazing. It's like high school...someone starts a fight and we have to roll down the hall just to be a part of it.

allegro
09-05-2013, 09:18 AM
http://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/375621219187294209/photo/1

KarenLeslie
09-05-2013, 09:22 AM
I'm aware that this is probably a really dumb question, BUT...the problem is that chemical weapons are against the Geneva Convention, right? And it's the UN's job to enforce Geneva, right?

So, like...why is the US considering taking independent action? It's the UN's responsibility. Granted, the US is PART of the UN, but any action against Syria taken on the basis of violating the convention should be done by a UN-sanctioned body, even if that body includes US military...right?

Fuck, why did I engage? Why did I even try thinking?

Deepvoid
09-05-2013, 09:28 AM
http://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/375621219187294209/photo/1

So 49 to 200 with 184 undecided; the majority of them being Dems.

How many "yes" needed to pass the resolution? Simple majority?

Another development is Putin stating he might provide Syria with a missile shield if the US attack.
If Russia shoots down a US missile, would this be considered an act of war on the country.

DigitalChaos
09-05-2013, 09:32 AM
http://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/375621219187294209/photo/1

I can't like a post from mobile. So, thanks!

Also, it's kind of surreal seeing the GOP play a majority in an anti-war topic.

DigitalChaos
09-05-2013, 09:38 AM
I'm aware that this is probably a really dumb question, BUT...the problem is that chemical weapons are against the Geneva Convention, right? And it's the UN's job to enforce Geneva, right?

So, like...why is the US considering taking independent action? It's the UN's responsibility. Granted, the US is PART of the UN, but any action against Syria taken on the basis of violating the convention should be done by a UN-sanctioned body, even if that body includes US military...right?

Fuck, why did I engage? Why did I even try thinking?

An even better question: why the fuck aren't these questions being asked when debating this? Only a minority are asking.

As Alan Grayson said, the recourse for these violations is to bring the perps to international court... not fucking bomb them.

Obama's stance is arrogant as shit and ignores the agreements made with the UN. Even if the UN sucks, we could still get some of the other countries to back us on this international topic. It's looking like Congress will probably balance that out.

DigitalChaos
09-05-2013, 09:51 AM
Another development is Putin stating he might provide Syria with a missile shield if the US attack.
If Russia shoots down a US missile, would this be considered an act of war on the country.

When did this happen? I'm guessing that's just Russia posturing after realizing the USA probably won't follow through.

KarenLeslie
09-05-2013, 10:00 AM
An even better question: why the fuck aren't these questions being asked when debating this? Only a minority are asking.


Oh good, so I'm not crazy- at least not in this particular instance.

It reminds me of years ago when Cheney said that the UN would have to agree with what the US was doing if they wanted to be considered "relevant"-- like, way to undermine the entire purpose of the UN there, dude. I mean, I get that the UN is kind of an idealistic body that probably can't function in reality the way it was conceived, but it really bothers me that they're not even trying to let the UN function the way it's supposed to.

Deepvoid
09-05-2013, 10:02 AM
When did this happen? I'm guessing that's just Russia posturing after realizing the USA probably won't follow through.

Sorry, should have provided a link
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/obama-putin-syria-g20-summit
It's being picked up by other medias including http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/putin-greets-obama-with-syria-threat/

elevenism
09-05-2013, 02:25 PM
An even better question: why the fuck aren't these questions being asked when debating this? Only a minority are asking.


I think you know why, DigitalChaos. The US doesn't give a SHIT about tired old things like the constitution, the geneva convention, or the dangers of unilateral action.
At the same time, it's also dangerous to draw a "red line" and not following through with it.
We need to draw fewer of these fucking red lines.

A congressman was positing that we reinstate the draft...and at first i was shocked and horrified. But then he fleshed out his point. If we all had a pound of flesh in this, if we ALL had something to lose...even members of congress and presidents, then maybe fewer of these "red lines" would be drawn.
Now i damn sure don't want a draft instated, and i don't think this congressman did either, but it was an interesting point.

I was starting to quit worrying about this, and then i heard that Putin might shoot down a missile attack...now i'm worried again. We have a bomb shelter basement, and that shit is CLEANED OUT now.

Deepvoid
09-06-2013, 09:01 AM
Official statement from Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "We believe that the Americans are committing a folly and mistake in Syria and will, accordingly, take the blow and definitely suffer."

Hezbollah issued its first statement on the issue claiming that any military action against Syria's government is "a form of direct and organized terrorism." Adding that "these threats fail to conceal the true objectives of this strike aimed at mobilizing Israeli (strength) in the region in an attempt to impose the Western colonial grip,"

Sutekh
09-06-2013, 10:07 AM
If anybody is still buying the line that the US admin is wanting to act out of humanitarian concern, please reconsider. They didn't give a damn about Gazans being subjected to white phosphorus, and they had no qualms regarding the use of depleted uranium or drone strikes.

They are using the chemical attacks to manipulate the public - they know people felt burned by Iraq, and have devised an alternate method of drumming up support.

But ultimately, Russia has its only naval base (outside of Russia) in northern syria, and US/NATO simply wants to knock this piece off the chessboard. (notice all the anti-Russian stories in the news recently? not a coincidence, and it's not like Russia became oppressive and Putin became an asshole recently)

If they gave a shit about humanitarian concerns, they would have acted on Gaza, right now all hell is breaking loose in the DRC and they do basically nothing. Kenyan MPs are voting to withdraw from the ICC (really only one reason you would do that), they prop up the Saudi and Bahrain regimes with money and weapons, facilitating their human rights abuses. There a myriad worse human rights catastrophes underway and in waiting that they mysteriously don't seem to prioritise. Ask yourself why

This is about knocking out one of Russia's assets and expanding the reach of the US-led economic system. This is why they bombed Yugoslavia, and this power struggle between the US and Russia is also why there was that war in Georgia a few years ago (Georgia wanted to build closer ties with the US).

There are various NGOs through which we can help the Syrian people - even if the Western Leaders eventually promise they only want to deliver gas masks and medical supplies, they WILL abuse the opportunity and quickly look for any reason to escalate.

This is not to mention blowback, which is more real for us than it is for the politicians who are chaffeur driven and have security details trailing them.

I don't like what's happening in Syria but the Western leaders cannot be trusted and are NOT interested in a solution to the problems in Syria

Elke
09-06-2013, 12:42 PM
I'm aware that this is probably a really dumb question, BUT...the problem is that chemical weapons are against the Geneva Convention, right? And it's the UN's job to enforce Geneva, right?

So, like...why is the US considering taking independent action? It's the UN's responsibility. Granted, the US is PART of the UN, but any action against Syria taken on the basis of violating the convention should be done by a UN-sanctioned body, even if that body includes US military...right?

Fuck, why did I engage? Why did I even try thinking?


The UN isn't doing anything, because the USSR and China are big players and both have insurgents in their own house.

elevenism
09-07-2013, 08:54 AM
I don't like what's happening in Syria but the Western leaders cannot be trusted and are NOT interested in a solution to the problems in Syria

I have to agree. I don't think we (in the US) have had a legitimate war since WWII.
And everyone seems to think we entered THAT shit to end the Holocaust, which wasn't the case.

It seems to me that everything since WWII has been posturing to gain more "pieces," as you put it, on a global chessboard.

One thing i wonder about...is THAT why we always support Israel? So that we have a nice friendly country in the middle east?

To me it would make more sense to support Every Other Country in the middle east.

Sutekh
09-07-2013, 09:19 AM
Israel has nukes and is just across the way from Russia. In the immediate area all Russia has is that naval base in Syria. Scissors beat paper. A nuclear-armed proxy in the middle east is an excellent tactical asset

America entered WW2 because it saw an ascendant Soviet Union and a declining British Empire, and decided to step in and make itself the other world power. One of the conditions for entering the war was the breakup of the Empire. This is why they waited so long to get involved (let the European powers exhaust themselves to the point where they come to the table)

Make no mistake, Western Europe (incl UK) is largely a collection of US vassal states - there are American military bases and listening stations absolutely everywhere, and our economies are ultimately subservient to the US in this top-down system.

The smart thing the US did was invade Europe whilst pretending not to invade Europe - they didn't hang US flags from every street corner, and they allow us our petty nationalist indulgences, but ultimately we are their satellites the same as Eastern Europe was made up of Soviet satellite states.

The official narrative is the US stepped in to defend liberty and defeat fascism. I really don't think it's Alex Jones territory to raise an eyebrow at that suggestion, if you look how the balance of power shifted during and after the war, and how the US wasn't really bothered about the rise of Fascism in 30s Europe or the conquests of Japan in the Pacific/se asia region, the real, slightly more cynical & realist motivations become clear

sentient02970
09-07-2013, 10:40 AM
Any use of military might to effect a political outcome is essentially war. It doesn't require front lines or "boots on the ground" to constitute it.

cahernandez
09-07-2013, 11:29 AM
Rammstein's Amerika video becomes again relevant now with Obama rattling the sabres of war. It's interesting how certain pieces of art gain relevance once again based on our current context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxroiTRg7Tg

Sutekh
09-07-2013, 11:37 AM
Interesting - but also very sad that these things retain relevance!

Deepvoid
09-09-2013, 03:01 PM
So it appears that Syria is welcoming Russia's proposition to hand over their chemical weapons under international control.
If they are in good faith, I don't see why the US would reject this offer. Everybody wins except Raytheon.

allegro
09-09-2013, 07:32 PM
So it appears that Syria is welcoming Russia's proposition to hand over their chemical weapons under international control.
If they are in good faith, I don't see why the US would reject this offer. Everybody wins except Raytheon.
Amen to that!

Jinsai
09-09-2013, 11:48 PM
Israel has nukes and is just across the way from Russia. In the immediate area all Russia has is that naval base in Syria. Scissors beat paper. A nuclear-armed proxy in the middle east is an excellent tactical asset

America entered WW2 because it saw an ascendant Soviet Union and a declining British Empire, and decided to step in and make itself the other world power. One of the conditions for entering the war was the breakup of the Empire. This is why they waited so long to get involved (let the European powers exhaust themselves to the point where they come to the table)

Make no mistake, Western Europe (incl UK) is largely a collection of US vassal states - there are American military bases and listening stations absolutely everywhere, and our economies are ultimately subservient to the US in this top-down system.

The smart thing the US did was invade Europe whilst pretending not to invade Europe - they didn't hang US flags from every street corner, and they allow us our petty nationalist indulgences, but ultimately we are their satellites the same as Eastern Europe was made up of Soviet satellite states.

The official narrative is the US stepped in to defend liberty and defeat fascism. I really don't think it's Alex Jones territory to raise an eyebrow at that suggestion, if you look how the balance of power shifted during and after the war, and how the US wasn't really bothered about the rise of Fascism in 30s Europe or the conquests of Japan in the Pacific/se asia region, the real, slightly more cynical & realist motivations become clear

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too far? Sure, we all know that the official story isn't as cut and dry as we're led to believe, but you're practically making the US involvement in WWII out to be nothing more than a selfish power grab. It's not that far of a stretch to conclude that the US felt legitimately threatened, and while we're listing off the reasons for us becoming officially involved, it's a bit of a coy maneuver to not even mention Pearl Harbor. The exclusion of that point as being a motivating factor (along with the country's war weary isolationist attitude) almost does sound like we're heading a bit into "Alex Jones territory."

Sutekh
09-10-2013, 08:56 AM
Don't you think you're taking this a bit too far? Sure, we all know that the official story isn't as cut and dry as we're led to believe, but you're practically making the US involvement in WWII out to be nothing more than a selfish power grab. It's not that far of a stretch to conclude that the US felt legitimately threatened, and while we're listing off the reasons for us becoming officially involved, it's a bit of a coy maneuver to not even mention Pearl Harbor. The exclusion of that point as being a motivating factor (along with the country's war weary isolationist attitude) almost does sound like we're heading a bit into "Alex Jones territory."

I see what you mean but the difference is you are totalising WW2 in a way I wasn't*, the pacific and European theatres are very seperate and I was discussing US motivations for entering the European theatre, within that context pearl harbour is not relevant. Pearl harbour was attacked by Japan, which necessitated getting the Nazis out of Europe? Two different conflicts

Pearl Harbour was the justification for entering the Pacific war, US entry into the European theatre was to nudge out the Empire and hold off the Soviets - this is not my interpretation, these are the reasons openly and plainly given by the US administration at the time (one of the very conditions for US boots on the ground in France was Churchill's dismantling of the Empire). The Nazi threat to the US is arguable - and certainly wasn't grave by the time they entered the Euro theatre (UK and USSR had the Fascists on the run by that point). I didn't mention Pearl Harbour because I'm discussing the US role in wartime & postwar Europe, it wasn't a coy or purposeful omission - I would never trivialise any aspect of world war 2 on purpose ;)

But on the subject of the Pacific - they were content to sit by and let abominable things happen in nanjing and manchuria, and only entered once a US base was attacked, so again, obviously humanitarian concerns weren't the order of the day (which is fair enough given the great war and the depression were so recent, as you say).

*edit - I have been misleadingly using the terms WW2 and European Theatre interchangeably due to my Euro-centricity, apologies for that

DigitalChaos
09-11-2013, 09:47 PM
Putin wrote an OpEd for NY Times. Its pretty awesome. I agree with every bit of it. Who would have imagined this message coming out of Russia a few years ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0

allegro
09-12-2013, 09:11 PM
Putin wrote an OpEd for NY Times. Its pretty awesome. I agree with every bit of it. Who would have imagined this message coming out of Russia a few years ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
see the new thread created.

elevenism
04-10-2014, 08:57 PM
So world war 3 coming soon? how about this bullshit with russia?

thelastdisciple
04-10-2014, 09:04 PM
I'm honestly surprised we've gone on as long as we have without a "world war"...

elevenism
04-10-2014, 09:15 PM
i;m honestly fucking scared now. i don't want it.
i can't even believe we (as a "civilized" animal) fight wars still. :(

elevenism
04-10-2014, 09:19 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26953113

sorry for double post. THe above link is what's going on now if you guys don't know.
So if Ukraine and Russia go to war, will other countries stand by or will we attack?

And then what if China supports Russia, and possibly Iran?

It might be US/England/France/Germany etc vs China/Russia/Iran/Syria etc.

Holy Catshit, Batman, that's a fearsome proposition.

Ryan
04-10-2014, 09:21 PM
"World War Three?!"


http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/southpark.jpg

Ryan
04-10-2014, 09:22 PM
And then what if China supports Russia, and possibly Iran?

It might be US/England/France/Germany etc vs China/Russia/Iran/Syria etc.

Holy Catshit, Batman, that's a fearsome proposition.


While we Australians drink beer and lol at everyone.

elevenism
04-10-2014, 09:29 PM
Ryan , my girl and i want out of this country REALLY bad.

Ryan
04-10-2014, 09:33 PM
Move here and suckle at my teet.

allegro
04-10-2014, 09:39 PM
And then what if China supports Russia, and possibly Iran?
I took a class on China in grad school.

China won't support Russia. China won't support anybody except China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinocentrism).

allegro
04-10-2014, 09:44 PM
Meanwhile, those "ethnic Russians" in Crimea appear to WANT to be Russians. Go figure. News at 11.

elevenism
04-10-2014, 10:56 PM
Ryan, you got a spare room?
I've got a friend in Dublin who has invited us to stay there, but we don't have money for tickets, and Canada doesn't want us due to our criminal records.

Fixer808
04-11-2014, 09:42 AM
While we Australians drink beer and lol at everyone.
You guys are lucky, Anthony Perkins and Fred Astaire'll be on hand for the nuclear apocalypse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc7y8xs6QXw

Deepvoid
04-15-2014, 11:53 AM
Ukraine troops are allegedly moving towards Donetsk.
The army allegedly took control of an airport in Kramatorsk that had been seized by pro-Russians forces.

I doubt we're witnessing the beginning of WW3. Ukraine not being a NATO country makes all the difference.
I don't think Putin is crazy enough to go into Estonia, despite earlier report that he might have interest in the town of Narva.

Putin can send his SU-24 fighters doing stupid maneuvers in the Baltic Sea, US is certainly not gonna attack unarmed jets.
I think this is just for show.

Deepvoid
04-17-2014, 12:08 PM
Jews are being ordered to register in Eastern Ukraine.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/04/17/3428041/someone-is-ordering-eastern-ukraines-jews-to-register-with-separatist-group/

elevenism
04-22-2014, 06:08 PM
Jews are being ordered to register in Eastern Ukraine.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/04/17/3428041/someone-is-ordering-eastern-ukraines-jews-to-register-with-separatist-group/

You've got to be shitting me.
And last week, putin claimed he would back the fuck off, while he appears to be doing just the opposite.
And now we have 600 US infantry men over there flexing at the border...although i'm sure JSOC has been there for months.
The official us position appears to be "Stop doing this shit or we will shoot at you."

The human race makes me sick sometimes...it's not that i'm a nihilist, i'm a pacifist.
Shouldn't we as rational, civilized beings be over the whole war bullshit by now?

screwdriver
04-22-2014, 07:16 PM
Shouldn't we as rational, civilized beings be over the whole war bullshit by now?

oh we're definitely civilized, as in, part of civilization, but I'm not sure where you're getting rational from

icecream
08-28-2014, 09:48 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russian-tanks-enter-ukraine-fire-missiles-at-border-post-1.2749066

So it's pretty much a legit invasion at this point. Ukraine isn't a NATO state, so it isn't an automatic deceleration of war by the other members. Wonder how the UN will handle it? Telling Putin he is being a naught boy hasn't worked so far. Not that I'm a realist by any means, but something needs to be done.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/22/assad_is_america_s_strange_bedfellow_and_the_price _is_190000_dead?utm_content=buffer54cfa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

About Syria. Assad is now, strangely, America's ally against ISIS.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/19/is_barack_obama_more_of_a_realist_than_i_am_stephe n_m_walt_iraq_russia_gaza

A good look at how the Obama administration has been handling its foreign policy. Surprise! He might not be the weak guy Republicans say he is.

Deepvoid
08-28-2014, 10:10 AM
The fact that Ukraine is not a NATO state is the only reason why Putin is maneuvering as he wants. Why do you think he's not touching Latvia or Estonia. Both have a strong pro-Russian population but both are NATO members. Putin can't do anything there.

Getting back to Urkaine, no one and I mean no one will intervene through military actions except Ukraine itself and they are no match for the Russians.
The question is where will it stop? Will Putin completely take over Ukraine (I doubt) or will he only focus on southern and southeastern towns along the border.
Novoazovs'k just fell down to Russia. It is a key town as it will now serves as an entry point for Russian soldiers through the southeastern borders.

How far can the US and EU push economic sanctions down Russia's throat before Putin shuts down oil & gas exports to Europe?

icecream
08-28-2014, 10:20 AM
How far can the US and EU push economic sanctions down Russia's throat before Putin shuts down oil & gas exports to Europe?
That's what I have been wondering. But is it worth it for Ukrainians to lose sovereignty because the rest of Europe needs its oil and gas? Sad thing is, the rest of Europe would rather lose the Ukraine and keep the oil. I don't know how much of Europe's oil and gas comes from Russia, but I expect it will be a big hit to the EU's economy if it is cut off.

I wonder if Russia can put sanctions on Estonia and Latvia in an effort to get them to leave NATO? Interesting to see what they will do in the coming months.

Deepvoid
08-28-2014, 10:43 AM
That's what I have been wondering. But is it worth it for Ukrainians to lose sovereignty because the rest of Europe needs its oil and gas? Sad thing is, the rest of Europe would rather lose the Ukraine and keep the oil. I don't know how much of Europe's oil and gas comes from Russia, but I expect it will be a big hit to the EU's economy if it is cut off.

I wonder if Russia can put sanctions on Estonia and Latvia in an effort to get them to leave NATO? Interesting to see what they will do in the coming months.

According to this report (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/international/bilateral_cooperation/russia/doc/reports/progress10_en.pdf) EU crude oil imports represent 53.1% of their total consumption. 32.6% of crude oil imports came from Russia.
Gas imports from Russia was 38.7% in 2007. I believe it's about 40% today.

So yes, cutting crude oil or gas exports would be a freaking disaster for Europe.

"While buyers can switch oil and coal suppliers relatively quickly and easily, Europe receives most of its gas through pipelines that are fed by only one supplier, Gazprom, in annual exports worth $80 billion."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/27/us-ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSKBN0GR0W120140827

sentient02970
08-29-2014, 04:50 PM
"HELP!! Anyone?? Bueller?? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0GS10C20140829)

Deepvoid
08-29-2014, 07:23 PM
"HELP!! Anyone?? Bueller?? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0GS10C20140829)

Putin is now flexing his nuclear muscles... (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/russia-putin-conflict-idUKL5N0QZ3HC20140829)

Your Name Here
09-02-2014, 03:21 PM
I am not a religious person and I don't believe in the book of revelations. With that being said, the Middle East has never been that stable but as mentioned on CNN the Middle East is in the worst shape in 40 years. Israel and Gaza may have a cease fire at the moment but it never seems to last. Iraq, Syria, Isis control, outside of the Middle East you have the Ebola outbreak in west Africa, Russia and the Ukraine crisis. Iran has been surprisingly quiet thus far.
To me the world seems like its on the brink of disaster, it seems like so many countries that hate the US. Isis is baiting the US to draw us into Syria and I'm not sure if going after them in Syria would be a smart move for the US. My concern is a well funded terrorist organization like Isis getting access to a nuclear weapon.
I'm also concerned about a possible world war that didn't use nuclear weapons but more modern day technology like chemical or biological weapons or just an attack on communication or Satallites. Imagine waking up one morning and your cell phone doesn't work, the cable is out and you can't access the internet on your laptop, iPad or phone. Do you still have a land line?

allegro
09-02-2014, 03:25 PM
I had a land line until last year, but then I realized I couldn't call anybody, anyway, because nobody I knew had a land line, so it didn't really matter much. So now I have cable phone and cell phones. Ugh.

Your Name Here
09-02-2014, 04:17 PM
I'm not sure what would happen if modern communication failure were to occur. It would pandemonium, I have friends that are addicted to their cell phones and Facebook page. I don't even have a Facebook page I'm sort of anti Facebook.
A communication failure would be far worse then no cell service or Facebook, think about what it could do to financial markets or government services, or the electrical grid or water service we could be in for a world of hurt. The loss of water and electricity many countries would become unglued.

Satyr
09-02-2014, 11:27 PM
I'm not sure what would happen if modern communication failure were to occur. It would pandemonium, I have friends that are addicted to their cell phones and Facebook page. I don't even have a Facebook page I'm sort of anti Facebook.
A communication failure would be far worse then no cell service or Facebook, think about what it could do to financial markets or government services, or the electrical grid or water service we could be in for a world of hurt. The loss of water and electricity many countries would become unglued.

Getting a cheap emergency radio is a good step....Keeping it in a Faraday cage is a good second step.

Jinsai
09-03-2014, 01:29 AM
Getting a cheap emergency radio is a good step....Keeping it in a Faraday cage is a good second step.

You called me a hoplophobe earlier, because I thought guns were dangerous and we should work on regulating who gets access to them.

What's the word for "irrational fear of the apocalypse?"

Satyr
09-03-2014, 01:53 AM
You called me a hoplophobe earlier, because I thought guns were dangerous and we should work on regulating who gets access to them.

What's the word for "irrational fear of the apocalypse?"

I called you a hoplophobe ("earlier" as in at least a couple weeks ago) because you are one (I didn't even know what a hoplophobe was until someone pointed out that you were the definition). As for having an "irrational fear of the apocalypse"....I doubt I have that as you're the only one talking about the apocalypse (an overtly religious description of a worldwide catastrophe)....

If owning a cheap emergency radio means I have an "irrational fear of the apocalypse".....I guess I don't have that as I don't own one (just saying I should). I'll go with you're just mad that I pointed out that you're a hoplophobe though (because you are).

Jinsai
09-03-2014, 01:59 AM
I called you a hoplophobe ("earlier" as in at least a couple weeks ago) because you are one (I didn't even know what a hoplophobe was until someone pointed out that you were the definition)

Have you ever had a lethal weapon pulled on you with the threat of it being actually used?

icecream
09-03-2014, 02:09 AM
Shouldn't most people be a hoplophobe considering weapons are used to kill?

Jinsai
09-03-2014, 02:11 AM
Shouldn't most people be a hoplophobe considering weapons are used to kill?

Not if you're some psychotic internet warrior who has never had a gun pointed at him in real life... then you can run around online mocking people for being "irrationally scared of guns."

icecream
09-03-2014, 02:16 AM
Not if you're some psychotic internet warrior who has never had a gun pointed at him in real life... then you can run around online mocking people for being "irrationally scared of guns."
Not even guns. Knives are pretty scary when used threateningly, even baseball bats. I would consider myself scared of those when used as a weapon

Satyr
09-03-2014, 09:46 AM
Have you ever had a lethal weapon pulled on you with the threat of it being actually used?

Yes....I work in Emergency Medicine.

I used to have an irrational fear of guns. When I was going through college one of my friends friends revealed that he had a CCW and my first thought was I was going to accidentally get shot to death (which is not rational). A gun is an inanimate object. It on its own can not hurt you.

I am afraid of an unstable PERSON going on a shooting spree where I work. We even have training for just that scenario. You can fixate on firearms all you want.....The real problem is Mental Health.

Sarah K
09-03-2014, 09:49 AM
Mental Health is absolutely part of the "problem". But it is a problem that has more than one cause.

Deepvoid
09-03-2014, 10:09 AM
Am I drunk or this is not the gun thread?

Satyr
09-03-2014, 10:14 AM
Am I drunk or this is not the gun thread?

You're right, its not. I'm sorry that Jinsai started ranting about guns after I suggested people that are concerned with communications failures might want to buy a cheap emergency radio.

By all means, back to the topic at hand.

elevenism
09-03-2014, 10:46 AM
So is everyone Prepared For Assault/World War Three?

Deepvoid
09-03-2014, 10:58 AM
Putin said he could take Kiev in 2 weeks if he wanted to.
Allegedly taken out of context. I'm wondering in which context this statement could have a positive spin.

NATO has plan to build up troops in the region.
I just hope no one presses the red button by mistake.

elevenism
09-03-2014, 11:21 AM
i'm kinda uneasy about all of this...i just realized i started this thread right at a year ago, and things are looking a HELL of a lot worse.
And my fears remain the same...
a russian/syrian (ISIS)/possibly chinese alliance that could actually start a world war.

Jinsai
09-03-2014, 11:21 AM
Am I drunk or this is not the gun thread?

My fault for the detour. Back to talking about WWIII.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 11:45 AM
I'm not sure what would happen if modern communication failure were to occur. It would pandemonium, I have friends that are addicted to their cell phones and Facebook page. I don't even have a Facebook page I'm sort of anti Facebook.
A communication failure would be far worse then no cell service or Facebook, think about what it could do to financial markets or government services, or the electrical grid or water service we could be in for a world of hurt. The loss of water and electricity many countries would become unglued.
You'd be surprised to learn about all the emergency communication channels that do not require physical lines on the backend like the internet does. Ham radio being the most popular. How many people under 30 even know what that is let alone have stepped away from facebook long enough to learn it?

There is also a lot of distributed mesh network technology that is being worked on. Stuff that uses off the shelf wireless routers and such. They are intended for the countries experiencing massive upheaval, but it's basically the same thing as an outright failure.

You are right that a very large portion of people would lose their shit if any part of the grid dropped for even a week. It's pretty sad.

Satyr
09-03-2014, 11:49 AM
So is everyone Prepared For Assault/World War Three?

If it happens I doubt anyone will be really ready. Even the doomsday preppers that have massive arsenals/food/water saved up to last for years.

Here's an interesting read for those curious about Shit Hit The Fan Scenarios.

http://www.naturalnews.com/040249_bosnia_preppers_survival_strategies.html

Deepvoid
09-03-2014, 11:56 AM
i'm kinda uneasy about all of this...i just realized i started this thread right at a year ago, and things are looking a HELL of a lot worse.
And my fears remain the same...
a russian/syrian (ISIS)/possibly chinese alliance that could actually start a world war.

Not sure if the Chinese government wants to get mixed up in the current mess. They have been relatively quiet so far.
You're right, things have gotten worse over the past year. Are we witnessing history in the making (as is the beginning of WWIII), I don't think so personally.
The idea of living through a third world war seems so far-fetched, especially because of the quantity of nukes out there. I don't think anyone would let that happen.

allegro
09-03-2014, 12:32 PM
Not sure if the Chinese government wants to get mixed up in the current mess. They have been relatively quiet so far.
China will not involve themselves in the "mess" of others unless it directly threatens China. China's ancient history is rooted in Tianxia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianxia) which basically means they are the center of the world and they view the "rest" of the world as barbarians not worthy of their attention and that hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot in thousands of years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Tianxia_en-zh-hans.svg

Your Name Here
09-03-2014, 12:58 PM
I dont think a nuclear war would kill everybody on the planet, Im not saying there isnt enough nukes to do that. What im saying is several cities my vanish on either side before both sides realize the futility of the excessive use of force.
I think that the modern world is a bit more sinister and cynical to just go for the blinding flash of light.
Cyber attacks, world wide blackouts, catastrophic communications failures, biological weapons, or virus epidemics like ebola all have the potential to create a doomsday scenario.
I think all scenarios wouldnt kill everybody on the planet but it would definately change the world as we know it now.

Jinsai
09-03-2014, 02:26 PM
If it happens I doubt anyone will be really ready. Even the doomsday preppers that have massive arsenals/food/water saved up to last for years.This is the part that I'm not getting... Not everyone is completely helpless and lacking in survival skills. I have a friend that has a property that was cheap to buy, and he's set it up so that it's completely off the grid. He supplies his own power, grows his own food. He hasn't done it because he is afraid of a doomsday scenario, but he's perfectly "ready" if it happens.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 02:51 PM
This is the part that I'm not getting... Not everyone is completely helpless and lacking in survival skills. I have a friend that has a property that was cheap to buy, and he's set it up so that it's completely off the grid. He supplies his own power, grows his own food. He hasn't done it because he is afraid of a doomsday scenario, but he's perfectly "ready" if it happens.
Most of the "Doomsday Preppers" are horribly underprepared individuals. Very overweight, thinks buying a bunch of gadgets and hoarding shit is all they need to do to survive, etc. They could survive through a 1 week inconvenience, but that's about it.

The people who are already living the off the grid lifestyle will fare much better, but even those people are surprisingly dependent on the rest of society. Various food and trade, etc. There are very few people growing/making 100% of their food, clothes, electrical, tools, etc.

botley
09-03-2014, 03:09 PM
The way to survive upheaval is not to run away from other people.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 03:14 PM
Yes, i realize this show is a very.... extreme and selective view of Preppers, but I have to admit that the shit is hilarious. Most of you haven't seen this stuff so let me share:

Idiot literally shoots his thumb off (calls it a malfunction) in front of his kids while doing prepping exercises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qth1k962_9A

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 03:14 PM
Guy starts crying and throwing up after his friend fires a gun inside a hunting shed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOog45llUU

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 03:24 PM
The way to survive upheaval is not to run away from other people.
I think that is very dependent on the situation and timing. There are a lot of reasons you would want to keep your distance.
As someone who lives on a fault line, my primary concern after a large quake (after the initial 24-48hrs) is the people. Less than 40% of people around me have the FEMA recommended minimum for an earth quake kit. Back during the 1906 quake, they had to call in the Army to deal with the rioting and looting. People back then were more self-reliant and didn't have such short supplies of necessities at home. The culture was also a lot more "neighborly" back then too. I can only imagine how much uglier things would be if that quake hit today.

allegro
09-03-2014, 05:14 PM
We kind of learned a little of what living "off the grid" (and its horrors) might be like during the Northeast Coast Blackout of 2003. We were in Detroit for the Stooges reunion homecoming show when it happened. We didn't realize that all gas stations stop working, toilets stop flushing, most water filtration plants stop pumping water, your cell phone may charge up in your car but the cell network is so overloaded you can't get ahold of anybody, and you'd better hope your car is full of gas to keep that cell charger going because, as I said, the gas stations can't pump gas. People were selling little bottles of water on the street for a buck each, because capitalism goes into overdrive. Everything starts to smell. We were staying at a big hotel in Troy, and the elevators didn't work and our room had no A/C of course and the hotel was giving away food because it would go bad, anyway. The Stooges show at the DTE got canceled. We opted to risk it and make our way to my mom's place near Royal Oak on the little gas we had left in the car, since she at least had working toilets (they eventually stopped working, too). We made it. It was the annual Dream Cruise weekend and the show went on, and they served warm beer and grilled hot dogs at Como's on Woodward. Somehow, Detroit tenacity made it okay, but when it was all over, when we got home to Chicago, we immediately stored gallons of water and put gas in the generator and got a lot more car chargers and realized we'd probably die in a week in the event of a true catastrophe cause we're wimps, and I vowed to someday put solar panels on our roof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nt0njgVmv4

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 06:23 PM
Man, I remember that. NatGeo actually created a movie and corresponding website that attempted to model how a 10 day national blackout would be.
http://www.survivetheblackout.com/

It's low budget and cheesy, but the data is interesting. For example, the little graph showing the daily climb in fatalities and financial impact. Many people reflexively said this would only be absolute worst case, but they actually modeled toward most likely.


People should just try camping for a week. Try to see how long you can survive without opening any food or hygiene products you brought with.

allegro
09-03-2014, 06:26 PM
People should just try camping for a week. Try to see how long you can survive without opening any food or hygiene products you brought with.
The food and hygiene we do okay with when we go out on the boat or whatever but the funny thing is when we "unplug" -- we can go a little while with just real books (no Kindle) and magazines but eventually we're jonesing for our smartphones or iPads or whatever. It's nuts. That's why we bought the multiple chargers. In 2003, we only had flip phones. Now, G and I have 2 smartphones, 4 iPads, a Kindle, and we walk around with these like fucking LIFE SUPPORT UNITS.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 06:39 PM
The food and hygiene we do okay with when we go out on the boat or whatever but the funny thing is when we "unplug" -- we can go a little while with just real books (no Kindle) and magazines but eventually we're jonesing for our smartphones or iPads or whatever. It's nuts. That's why we bought the multiple chargers. In 2003, we only had flip phones. Now, G and I have 2 smartphones, 4 iPads, a Kindle, and we walk around with these like fucking LIFE SUPPORT UNITS.
I think I'd take a flushing toilet and occasional hot shower in place of the internet. But basic entertainment type stuff is a pretty important part of any emergency kit. Cards, dice, pencil and paper, low power music devices (solar/hand crank) etc. You actually just reminded me that I need to update some of that. My kid no longer needs a pacifier or any of that kind of stuff in the bags. I probably need to swap that out for some coloring pages and misc activity books.


Do you find yourself trying to hit up information on the smartphones or just pass time? I actually have a stack of books that will provide any information I may need in a long-lasting emergency situation. I have a decent amount of it stored in my head. My most lacking is probably medical based... Having both parents in medicine meant they always did that kind of thing for me.

It's awesome discussing this with sane people. I usually get the people who think any sort of emergency prepping is paranoid, or the individuals who are straight out of that Doomsday Preppers tv show.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 06:44 PM
As for those device chargers, i have a ton of those. Portable fold-out solar panels, hand crank, various power converter (various AC and DC sources) that all can pipe into various battery packs. Some are lithium blocks with outputs for both USB and a charger for Macbooks, some run off 4x AA sets that output USB. Most of that started with my need to be constantly connected and powered on for work, but it grew into the emergency bag a bit :)

allegro
09-03-2014, 06:53 PM
Do you find yourself trying to hit up information on the smartphones or just pass time? I actually have a stack of books that will provide any information I may need in a long-lasting emergency situation. I have a decent amount of it stored in my head. My most lacking is probably medical based... Having both parents in medicine meant they always did that kind of thing for me.
We go to our boat to deliberately get out of the city and get out into nature, it's like roughing it in a camper except it's floating, we have cable t.v. with about 10 channels and a DVD player (HDTV) and a microwave, a one-burner electric stove, a little dorm-sized fridge and tiny freezer, so it kind of forces us to "relax." We TRY to get off the grid, but IT'S REALLY HARD. I bring my Kindle, but I try to bring actual books with me, my journal, G brings magazines and books, we try to actually just hang out, G cleans a lot (boats require a lot of cleaning, bugs, algae, whatever). We do tend to mostly just look up information when we do break our no-internet rules. Luckily, the cell and internet coverage up there sucks, so i can't work very much and we can't spend all day up there dicking around on our smartphones or iPads. So it forces us to be off the Internet. But I've gotten bored and sat there watching about 2 hours of Seinfeld re-runs on one of the 10 TV channels. Honest. wtf. But we have had to learn how to live on food that stores on a boat, that requires no refrigeration in very little space, or can be cooked on a tiny cooktop etc. It's taught us how to rough it in interesting ways. And we've had power outages here in our house, and our ejector pumps went out so we bought battery backups and gas generators, and you can get these cool whole-house natural gas generators. It's not just doom-and-gloom, it's knowing that our current grid is total shit. And that we really rely way too much on all of this stuff and we all need to learn how to "unplug" once in a while. You go to restaurants and look around and see whole tables of families staring at smartphones, not even talking to each other. G and I vow not to do that unless we're looking something up to discuss. It's certainly convenient for parents to put an iPad in a toddler's hand to keep them quiet in a restaurant, but what if we had no electricity? You see those videos where the toddler doesn't know what to do with a magazine, wants to know how to operate it like an iPad. Even my mom's CAT is addicted to my smartphone.

Oh, that reminds me, we do actually have boxes of games like Yahtzee and we have Chess, and I have these cool battery-powered lanterns that we use all the time, Colemans that are fucking AWESOME, everyone should have them.

http://www.amazon.com/Coleman-Rugged-Personal-Size-Lantern/dp/B0009PUQ6O/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1409789851&sr=8-7&keywords=coleman+lantern

The WORST thing about these power outages, really, was no sanitation. No toilets was starting to get gross. I don't know what would happen after 10 days. No electricity at night was scary, too, because of the total darkness, no security, and potential looting; the cities were able to hold it off for the relatively short amount of time this happened in the very hot summer with no A/C but if it went on much longer, you'd definitely have a huge spike in crime.

DigitalChaos
09-03-2014, 08:34 PM
Hell yes allegro! Very cool!

I'm totally with you about how attached people are these days. People always say "it's those damn kids" but EVERYONE is like that now. Many people have no idea how to keep their kids busy without an ipad. I can only imagine the hell of a 1 week power outage for them.


My gear is much more about being light and compact, in addition to shelf life. I want everything to be as mobile as possible. So, I have lots of gear you would find for backpacking. A little 5oz fold up stove that is hyper efficient with fuel - you can cook a full meal with twigs. The only ridiculous thing I have is a machete that they used a lot in The Walking Dead. It's completely useless for any real work, but makes a great conversation starter with friends who want to know more about my "Zombie Apocalypse Kit." That's lead to a lot of people realizing how easy, yet important, it is to have some essentials when living on a fault line.


You are really making me want to move out somewhere that has more open space and affordable land. We have great camping opportunities and my wife's parents just bought a sail boat (ocean travel on your own is frightening). It's just such a heavy disconnect from nature outside of those opportunities.



It's funny up how this went from discussing how hard it would be if the grid dies, to enjoying when we leave the grid. I guess that's the difference between losing something entirely vs simply stepping away for a bit.

allegro
09-03-2014, 11:15 PM
Our grid has died so many times in this area, we've seen the damage it does and what we need to live without it; so maybe we're unlucky (and the electric companies are greedy bastards), but maybe we're lucky.


You quickly learn what works and what doesn't. No electricity means no heat or AC or fans (furnaces need electricity); if it's winter and you have a fireplace or 2, you're ahead. If not, maybe you have a gas oven. If not, you're screwed and have zero heat, and if the outdoor temps are subzero, you start counting down to when your pipes are going to burst and flood your house. My friends in Mi just lost power for the 2nd time this summer, for 2 days; the deep freezer was full of meat for the big family bbq. Hopefully their homeowner's insurance will cover the loss but they don't know, yet. She's looking into a natural gas generator. We have a gas range, but it has an electric starter so that's out. But we have a super awesome gas grill so that works for cooking and baking.

The terrorists can't be any worse than the damage these greedy bastards at the electric company cause all the time.

Jinsai
09-04-2014, 12:51 AM
this thread has taken my favorite (and most random) detour ever on this board.

allegro
09-04-2014, 01:25 AM
this thread has taken my favorite (and most random) detour ever on this board.

Hey, here's a survival tip I saw on The Soup on E! from the Wendy Williams show: she took a Slim Jim and lit the end of it with a Bic lighter, like a hillbilly BBQ. Heh.

Deepvoid
09-05-2014, 08:14 AM
NATO approves new force aimed at deterring Russia (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NATO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).

sentient02970
09-05-2014, 08:50 AM
NATO approves new force aimed at deterring Russia (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NATO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).
Funny how the feeble attempt to tack on an Iraq response was recognized as well. NATO: Getting Ready To Fight Everybody

Deepvoid
09-05-2014, 10:08 AM
They kinda needed to show some form of support for their allies in the region.
Obama did the same in Estonia a couple days ago.
Russian needs to know that they cannot even try to poke NATO allies.

**

Looks like Putin is poking the bear

Estonia says security officer abducted and taken to Russia. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/estonian-abduction-russia_n_5772654.html)

elevenism
09-06-2014, 11:56 AM
we have a bomb shelter under our house...not a fallout shelter, but it's got six foot thick concrete walls.
The problem is, it's full of bullshit! It's also where the cat boxes are.
We live in the texas panhandle, which is a very tornado prone area. We had one twelve miles out of town and had friends show up wanting to go in our basement. I was so embarassed.
When i get home, i'm going to clean and organize that shit.
And i'm not going to doomsday prep it, but i'm thinking of doing 2 weeks to a month of food and water, flashlights/lanterns and lots of batteries, weather radio, regular radio, first aid kits, bedclothes for the set of bunkbeds down there, etc.
i want it prepped MOSTLY for a tornado that swept the house away...to have enough supplies to be semi-comfortable until rescue. The great high plains, (i live fifteen miles south of OK in the texas panhandle,) see so many fucking tornadoes that having one hit the place where we live seems pretty damn possible.
The lights went out during that storm and i was thinking how fucked up it would be to even have to wait out the storm down there...tripping over boxes, stepping in catshit, etc. We have something REALLY nice, something that people show up beating on our door wanting to use, and it is a disgusting, unprepared wreck. My grandfather had that shit built during the cuban missile crisis, and i strongly doubt he intended it to be all fucked off the way it is now.

on another note, fuck yes! they are playing Never Let Me Down Again over the speakers at the hotel!

edit: hot damn now they are playing Head Over Heels!

DigitalChaos
09-06-2014, 01:31 PM
^ For water, get yourself a bunch of water-tight 5gal buckets. You can usually find them around the paint section of hardware stores (check the plastic type, ensure it is food grade). They will make decent chairs for your shelter too! Water needs to be replaced yearly, unless you add a disinfectant (like bleach) to get a 3-5 year shelf life. Don't buy prebottled stuff from a store that goes bad in 6-12mo. A few of those 4oz bags of "emergency water" are good to have on hand though, and are super cheap from amazon.

And always remember to loot your water heater and top of toilet tank for fresh water :)

Deepvoid
09-08-2014, 11:56 AM
You guys might need those shelters after all.
I don't know if this is a reliable source.

Two Russian strategic bombers conducted practice nuclear-armed cruise missile attacks on US. (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-strategic-bombers-near-canada-practice-cruise-missile-strikes-on-us/)

Satyr
09-08-2014, 12:00 PM
You guys might need those shelters after all.
I don't know if this is a reliable source.

Two Russian strategic bombers conducted practice nuclear-armed cruise missile attacks on US. (http://http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-strategic-bombers-near-canada-practice-cruise-missile-strikes-on-us/)

The idea of Russia preemptively nuking cities in the US is about the herpest derpest thing I've ever heard. Have they ever heard of mutual assured destruction?

Deepvoid
09-08-2014, 12:10 PM
The idea of Russia preemptively nuking cities in the US is about the herpest derpest thing I've ever heard. Have they ever heard of mutual assured destruction?

For the record, I know it would never happen. Just posted the article because it falls in the line of signals sent by Putin, flexing his muscles in response to economic sanctions being thrown at it

elevenism
09-08-2014, 12:10 PM
The idea of Russia preemptively nuking cities in the US is about the herpest derpest thing I've ever heard. Have they ever heard of mutual assured destruction?


nice story...TELL IT TO READERS DIGEST!

sorry, couldn't help it...middleschool megadeth flashback.

JESUS christ, i hope to god there isnt a nuclear strike on american soil in our lifetimes.

it sounds morbidly interesting...it would definitely be exciting in a way....back to the primative and whatnot for the regions not immediately affected.

but good god, as far as i can tell, and from what i know of all the cautionary documentaries i've seen, lighting on of those fucking bombs off would just flat out be the end of the world.

didn't Openheimer quote the Bahagvad Gita when we dropped the first one?
i'm on this hotel computer with limited internet, so i'm paraphrasing, but i think he said "i am become death...the destroyer of worlds.

i'm glad i live in a fairly remote region. the texas panhandle is pretty goddamn desolate...BUT...we have Pantex in amarillo where we assemble our nukes...fucking hell...that's definitely a potential target.

my wife wants to put a steel door on our shelter...i hope we don't need it. i'm rambling.

i shut up now.

Satyr
09-08-2014, 12:38 PM
my wife wants to put a steel door on our shelter...i hope we don't need it. i'm rambling.

A steel door would be great to keep people out of your shelter.....Wouldn't be much help if Russia and the US start lobbing nukes at each other. Most of the people on the planet would be dead from the blasts or the radiation....or the Nuclear winter that follows.

Sutekh
09-08-2014, 12:41 PM
You'll never see an ICBM exchange between America and Russia or between either of those states and anyone else, don't worry!

It could feasibly happen in Asia/Middle East, but again... probably not. People are insane but they aren't totally stupid, the winner of such a confrontation gets to be king of a silent oven of radioactive death, woohoo

The two most likely scenarios are a limited exchange in the middle east and a backpack/dirty bomb

elevenism
09-08-2014, 12:45 PM
You'll never see an ICBM exchange between America and Russia or between either of those states and anyone else, don't worry!

It could feasibly happen in Asia/Middle East, but again... probably not. People are insane but they aren't totally stupid, the winner of such a confrontation gets to be king of a silent oven of radioactive death, woohoo

The two most likely scenarios are a limited exchange in the middle east and a backpack/dirty bomb


i can feel you. but the scary part is that we have nearly started flinging nukes several times.
you should watch Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie.

Sutekh
09-09-2014, 11:47 AM
Yep Cuban crisis and Able archer are pretty chilling! But again, it's a matter of perspective, the Cuban crisis is often cited as proof it could happen someday, when afaic it shows that when nuclear powers actually go toe to toe, they end up backing down.

Able Archer is scarier because the run-down soviet equipment mistook a flash from a flock of birds or a satellite for a launch, and because of the insane launch-on-warning system, it nearly kicked off. The only reason it didn't is because the operator transgressed protocol and cancelled the launch - and got put in a traitor's prison city for his troubles!

There was similar incident in 94 or 95 but luckily Yeltsin wasn't too drunk that night.

I think Putin knows that in the slim event that global civilisation survives an escalation, moscow would basically be carved up like Berlin in 1945 by the international community.

My biggest fear is a backpack bomb - clandestine material is out there, some Eastern European industrialists were busted a couple of years ago trying to sell Uranium in lead lined cigarette packets. Even more scary is the fact they were apolitical and just out to make a profit - how cold is that. Then there's Dr Khan from Pakistan selling his knowledge on... twats every last one of them.

Pie in the sky perhaps but I think maybe we need an international Uranium bank... mine every last drop and let the bank/UN control any suspected source sites

Deepvoid
09-10-2014, 08:13 AM
It appears Russian troops are withdrawing from Ukraine.

Gotta admit this was a master plan by Putin. By time people realized what was going on in Crimea, people were already voting to separate from Ukraine.
To shift the focus away from Crimea, Putin put on a show for several months in Eastern Ukraine.
Fast forward to September 2014. Cease-fire is signed, troops are withdrawing, the West will slowly but surely lift sanctions as the withdrawals continue and Ukraine will concede Crimea to avoid restarting the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

/end of story.

Deepvoid
01-06-2016, 08:01 AM
North Korea allegedly tested an H-Bomb. Experts aren't so sure if it's really an H-bomb or just a simple nuke.
Either way, they tested some shit.

Deepvoid
02-03-2016, 08:27 AM
A reminder of the aftermath of war.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy0X30T7Yho

elevenism
10-26-2016, 05:30 PM
Okay, i feel like it's time to bump this thread.
We are damn near fighting a aproxy war against Russia in Syria.
The policy and millitary decisions made in the next year will require briksmanship.

This is fucking scary.

Archive_Reports
10-26-2016, 06:09 PM
Isn't Russia kind of alone in this potential fight though?

Exocet
10-26-2016, 11:18 PM
Russia is the biggest threat for the next president by far. Russia has been brutal in Syira recently.
Highly doubt Putin will go to war with Nato. But he will still be really dangerous. Im certain Ukraine will escalate again soon.

Hillary Clinton will be tougher but it will probably result in Vlad resorting to further thuggish atrocious behaviour in response. He despises her deeply.
The most disturbing aspect of Trumps entire presidential campaign has been his relationship with Russia...i acctually agree Nato has at points disregarded Russias point of view and maybe over stepped its agreed boundaries.
But i dont think Trump fully understands what Vladimir wants to impose on the world. Autocracy, etc.
I just think Trump is too much of a fucking plank to be able to deal with Putin.

They need to find some sort of middle ground. But i dont know if this is possible.

Khrz
10-27-2016, 06:19 AM
Isn't Russia kind of alone in this potential fight though?

So far, and as far as we know. Ignoring any potential allies in case of larger conflict, Russia being alone isn't really a comforting thought.

The thing is, you can't really know which alliances will rise before a situation escalates, not at our level of knowledge anyway. It entirely depends on Russia's stand and claims, on the situation triggering the potential conflict, and on its adversary's own attitude and claims.
Russia won't have the same alliance if a conflict escalates due to what's happening in Syria or because of Ukraine, if it's butting heads with NATO or if it's a matter of solidifying its alliances in the middle east. Or all of it. Similarly, depending on whether Europe feels threatened or if it's a move against the US strategy in Africa, the players in the conflict wouldn't be the same, or equally involved.

elevenism
10-27-2016, 12:47 PM
it wouldn't surprise me, @Archive_Reports (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=1721) , if the shit hits the proverbial fan, russia would be backed by China, and possibly Iran, and even North Korea.
Alone, most of those countries are small potatoes, but some of them have nukes, and together they could create a chilling alliance.


I think that people should be paying more attention to this.

Deepvoid
03-13-2017, 11:08 AM
A brief update on the WWIII front.

The United States has begun deploying attack drones in South Korea. (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/323666-us-deploying-attack-drones-to-south-korea)

This follows the deployment of THAAD missile defense system. I'm not much for fear-mongering but let's just say that tension has ramped up in this particular area.

allegro
03-13-2017, 11:14 AM
Yeah thanks to the maniac in North Korea, ugh.

Louie_Cypher
03-13-2017, 12:02 PM
Yeah thanks to the maniac in North Korea, ugh. not to mention the idiot oompaloomppa man child in the oval office, will not end well
-Louie

allegro
03-13-2017, 12:18 PM
not to mention the idiot oompaloomppa man child in the oval office, will not end well
-Louie
I don't think Cheetoh wants to go to war, but Nikki Halley says we want N Korea to stop their demonstrations of aggression and isn't listening to China (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/08/519282253/u-n-ambassador-nikki-haley-says-all-options-on-table-with-north-korea).

To be fair, N Korea IS a real threat to our allies in S Korea and Japan.

kleiner352
03-13-2017, 12:29 PM
I don't think Trump wants to go to war necessarily, but Bannon probably does, and I could see, as time goes by and his popularity fails to rise, him pushing at Trump to get into a conflict since war time presidents always are favored more come time for reelection. It's the exact kind of move I could see him making, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Deepvoid
03-13-2017, 12:51 PM
I don't think Cheetoh wants to go to war, but Nikki Halley says we want N Korea to stop their demonstrations of aggression and isn't listening to China (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/08/519282253/u-n-ambassador-nikki-haley-says-all-options-on-table-with-north-korea).

To be fair, N Korea IS a real threat to our allies in S Korea and Japan.

China is also a problem for the US. The South China Sea is a cause for headaches.

Louie_Cypher
03-13-2017, 01:05 PM
i believe this to be true and scary http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trump-julian-assange-and-russia-how-theyre-connected-and-how-they-changed-an-election/
-Louie

elevenism
04-07-2017, 02:30 AM
Ok, bump bump, missiles flying, motherfucking proxy war.

Was Assad's chemical attack the first shot of World War 3?

Who is Prepared For Assault? :P

Deepvoid
04-08-2017, 08:04 PM
Ok, bump bump, missiles flying, motherfucking proxy war.

Was Assad's chemical attack the first shot of World War 3?

Who is Prepared For Assault? :P

US aircraft-led strike groupe heading towards Korean peninsula.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/politics/navy-korean-peninsula/index.html

Louie_Cypher
04-08-2017, 08:17 PM
more DJT diversion

elevenism
04-09-2017, 07:14 AM
more DJT diversionis that what all this is? I must admit, the thought has crossed my mind.
Like, wait a minute...when did this asshole start caring about the plight of the Syrians?

Louie_Cypher
04-09-2017, 07:43 AM
is that what all this is? I must admit, the thought has crossed my mind.
Like, wait a minute...when did this asshole start caring about the plight of the Syrians? the only thing trump cares about is lining the pockets of him and his friends
-Louie

Louie_Cypher
04-09-2017, 08:31 AM
i doubt he could point to Syria on a map
-Louie

Louie_Cypher
04-10-2017, 05:14 PM
China is also a problem for the US. The South China Sea is a cause for headaches. of course he does it's the ultimate distraction yhe myth of war driving markets/economy and of course nationalism you think of the laws that W pushed through during iraq. not to mention the ehole market meltdown you can bet half of his admistration goldman sach's would love war so the could finish the job they started, like i say pay attention and wake up!!
-Louie

Louie_Cypher
04-10-2017, 08:48 PM
if it wasn't a distraction what di it acomplish? planes shown taking off from air base the next day 57 million spent for?
-Louie

Louie_Cypher
04-11-2017, 12:50 PM
here's yet one more issue we don't because of his financial holdings and withholding investment information how do we know he didn't enrich himself with the literal press of the button "damn it's good to be king" for all those nervous about ISP"s selling your browser info this is an interesting approachhttp://ruinmysearchhistory.com/
-Louie

Art Vandelay
04-11-2017, 01:54 PM
I feel like Trump wants to purposely throw the US economy into a recession, so he he can use Russian investment money to buy up property in the US at discount, and what better way to do that then to start a war that the next administration will have to deal with.

Deepvoid
04-12-2017, 02:36 PM
Right now, I'm fairly convinced that Trump will attack North Korea's nuclear facilities.
Trump saw the approval ratings bump following the attack on Syria and I think he's gonna gun for NK next.
It'll get more praise from the ne-cons and some Dems.

What the consequences of an attack on NK will be are anyone's guess though. No way NK has the capabilities of launching a nuclear strike on the US. However, South Korea could be an easy target.

Deepvoid
05-18-2017, 01:26 PM
New US-led airstrikes against Pro-Assad convoy which included one tank. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/nancyyoussef/the-us-launched-new-airstrikes-against-pro-assad-forces-in?utm_term=.mcEM2L8G5#.voDMxjEBr)

The timing of this attack is quite amusing considering what's happening on this continent.

Deepvoid
01-25-2018, 10:05 AM
I guess this is fitting for this thread.

Doomsday clock now at 2 minutes to midnight. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/25/after-a-missile-scare-and-insult-war-with-north-korea-its-time-to-check-the-doomsday-clock/)

First time since 1953 when the US and Russia tested their first nuclear devices.

kaiouti
05-08-2018, 01:55 AM
I just hope Arnold Schwarzenegger comes down under to shield us from bombs with his massive calves and biceps, flex that wing-age muscles...buuuuddeee :P

btw Arnie should Make Austr-ia/-alia Great Again. He can do it! When the aftermath happens he can go back to the USA and become POTUS.

I'd vote for him, but I'm aussie. (Oi Oi Oi)

Deepvoid
05-08-2018, 11:13 AM
So it appears the NK situation is resolving itself. With Pompeo and Bolton, the most likely target would appear to be Iran. With Trump imminent withdrawal of the Iran deal, the next step would be surgical strikes to Iran nuclear facilities. Joint operation with Israel I would assume because I don't see any other countries joining in.

Exocet
05-09-2018, 01:45 AM
i find it funny how a country of 8 million people and 0.001 percent the size of America has such a dominance over the worlds only mighty superpower....and made America look like a little bitch..


you have literally sided with Israel over Germany, UK, France, China and Russia its insane....you cant do anything about it though,

and you wonder why every arab state hates you..everyone is turning to China.

you need to prioritize....but you cant.

elevenism
05-09-2018, 06:20 AM
i find it funny how a country of 8 million people and 0.001 percent the size of America has such a dominance over the worlds only mighty superpower....and made America look like a little bitch..


you have literally sided with Israel over Germany, UK, France, China and Russia its insane....you cant do anything about it though,

and you wonder why every arab state hates you..everyone is turning to China.

you need to prioritize....but you cant.

it's not US though. please don't include ME in the actions of american politicians.

Sutekh
05-09-2018, 07:40 AM
Obviously it's a shame he pulled out of the deal, but it is still going forward. And imagine how mad that must make him

elevenism
05-09-2018, 08:32 AM
Obviously it's a shame he pulled out of the deal, but it is still going forward. And imagine how mad that must make himand that's fucking awesome. It's great to see him shoot himself in the foot