Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 174

Thread: Prepare for Assault World War Three?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Part of Texas Where Motherfuckers Actually Wear Cowboy Hats and Whatnot
    Posts
    4,672
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)

    Prepare for Assault World War Three?

    So....it looks like we will strike Syria...who is backed by, ahem, China and Russia...Hmmmm...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SF, SD
    Posts
    1,155
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    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...)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Part of Texas Where Motherfuckers Actually Wear Cowboy Hats and Whatnot
    Posts
    4,672
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    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...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Part of Texas Where Motherfuckers Actually Wear Cowboy Hats and Whatnot
    Posts
    4,672
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    so might it go straight Year Zero/Mad Max up in this motherfucker?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Part of Texas Where Motherfuckers Actually Wear Cowboy Hats and Whatnot
    Posts
    4,672
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    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..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,487
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    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/...0GU1B420130829

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,362
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    China has a "do not interfere" policy. They aren't a threat to us. Nor will they support us.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    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!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,362
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)

    Prepare for Assault World War Three?

    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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2013 at 07:08 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,487
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,362
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    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...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    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/article...tion?page=full

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,487
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,073
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,362
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2013 at 03:15 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,073
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    1,767
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,671
    Mentioned
    115 Post(s)
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,073
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by marodi View Post
    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/Interna...nal_for_Rwanda

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

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    And even under the unilateral umm, protection of the UN, shit still happens; i.e. Srebrenica, for example.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hipster Hell, CA
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Rwanda was handled through the UNSC
    The UNSC did nothing. The situation wasn't "handled" and a genocide occurred.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,073
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Baphomette View Post
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hipster Hell, CA
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    So then let's support the Geneva Conventions by immediately ignoring the process behind them?
    Didn't suggest that at all.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    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/Interna...nal_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.
    Last edited by Elke; 09-01-2013 at 02:40 AM. Reason: I forgot about the apes

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    1,878
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    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?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    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.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,550
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by miss k bee View Post
    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

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,073
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    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...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Donegal, Ireland
    Posts
    2,828
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions