# U.S., Britain, France launch air strikes in Syria



## makeoutparadise (Apr 9, 2018)

> WATCH Trump says 'major decisions' on Syria coming soon
> 
> 
> President Monday condemned the recent alleged chemical attack in saying, “It was atrocious, it was horrible.”
> ...


Tail wagging dog?


----------



## WT (Apr 9, 2018)

This is probably just a cover story.

Somethings going on with Russia


----------



## Subarashii (Apr 9, 2018)

"Major Decision coming. Very refined (well thought decision). I did a great job."


----------



## Drake (Apr 9, 2018)

What's he going to do? Launch another missile? Obviously that hasn't stopped Assad and will have little to no impact. 

My guess is that he will announce some sort of sustained bombing campaign against Syrian government positions since deploying ground troops is out of the question. He could possibly station an aircraft carrier nearby as well to launch raids from, maybe sending _Theodore Roosevelt _back to her previous stationing since that strike group was the one bombing ISIS and is familiar operating there. Normally I'd say Russia would stay out of this if that's what the US decided to do, but with all the recent pressure on that country, it's possible that they may just snap and do something stupid.

Or there is the chance that Trump will do nothing but another missile strike after all, though that would make him look extremely weak, which I'm sure he would hate.


----------



## Atlas (Apr 9, 2018)

Bolton is about to get his rocks off.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 9, 2018)

His mind will probably change by then.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 10, 2018)

The US and British imperialists have become totally desperate now that their pet terrorists are facing defeat

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Chelydra (Apr 10, 2018)

I bet six missiles fired at an irrelevant base, where, irrelevant personnel are stationed...


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 11, 2018)

*Russia has warned that any U.S. missiles fired at Syria over a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel enclave would be shot down and the launch sites targeted, raising the possibility of a U.S.-Russian confrontation.*

Issuing the warning on Tuesday evening, the Russian ambassador to Lebanon also said such a clash should be avoided and Moscow was ready for negotiations. But his remarks could raise fears of direct conflict for the first time between major powers backing opposing sides in Syria's protracted civil war. 

Moscow and Washington sparred at the United Nations on Tuesday over the use of chemical weapons in Syria as Washington and its allies considered whether to strike at Syrian government forces over the alleged poison gas assault.

At least 60 people were killed in Saturday's suspected chemical weapons attack on the town of Douma, Syrian relief workers said. An estimated 500 people were being treated for "symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals", the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.

The Syrian government and Russia say the reports are bogus. The Kremlin said on Wednesday it hoped all sides involved in Syria would avoid doing anything that could destabilize an already fragile situation in the Middle East, and made clear it strongly opposed any U.S. strike on its ally.

After the attack, the rebel group holed up in Douma - Jaish al-Islam - finally agreed to withdraw from the town. That sealed a big victory for President Bashar al-Assad, who has now crushed the rebellion in the eastern Ghouta region near Damascus.

On the diplomatic front, Moscow and Washington stymied attempts by each other in the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday to set up international investigations into chemical weapons attacks in Syria. [

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday canceled a planned trip to Latin America later this week to focus instead on talks with Western allies about possible military action to punish Assad for the suspected gas attack on a rebel-held town that had long withstood a devastating Syrian government siege.

Trump had on Monday warned of a quick, forceful response once responsibility for the attack was established.

"If there is a strike by the Americans, then ... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired," Alexander Zasypkin, the Russian ambassador in Beirut, told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV, speaking in Arabic.

He said he was referring to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian armed forces chief of staff.

The Russian military said on March 13 that it would respond to any U.S. strike on Syria by targeting any missiles and launchers involved. Russia is Assad's most powerful ally and its devastating air power has helped him wrest back large swathes of territory from rebels since 2015. 

Zasypkin also said a clash between Russia and the United States over Syria "should be ruled out and therefore we are ready to hold negotiations".

Earlier in the week, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said there was no threat of the situation in Syria spiraling into U.S.-Russian hostilities. TASS news agency quoted him as saying he believed common sense would prevail.

*MISSILE SALVO FROM MEDITERRANEAN?*

Any U.S. strike is likely to involve the navy, given the risk to aircraft from Russian and Syrian air defense systems. A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, is in the Mediterranean.

With tensions mounting, pan-European air traffic control agency Eurocontrol warned airlines to exercise caution in the eastern Mediterranean due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria over the next 72 hours.

Eurocontrol said that air-to-ground and cruise missiles could be used within that period and there could be intermittent disruptions of radio navigation equipment.

Both Russia and Iran, Assad's other main ally, have warned his enemies against military action in recent days, underlining their commitment to the Syrian government they have armed and supported through years of conflict.

Ali Akbar Velayati, the top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said during a visit to Damascus on Tuesday that an Israeli attack on an air base in Syria earlier this week would "not remain without response".

*RISK OF "UNCONTROLLABLE ESCALATION"*

On Monday, U.N. Syria peace envoy Staffan de Mistura cited the air base strike along with other recent events in Syria in a briefing to the Security Council, cautioning against a "situation of uncontrollable escalation".

Syria's Russian-supplied air defenses shot down an Israeli F-16 jet in February during a previous bombing run against what Israel described as Iranian-backed positions in Syria.

Last year, the United States carried out strikes from two Navy destroyers against a Syrian air base after another toxic gas attack on a rebel-controlled pocket.

The U.S. and Russian militaries have sought to avoid conflict in Syria, notably last year in the Euphrates River Valley where they supported rival sides in the campaign against Islamic State militants.

However, U.S. forces in February killed or injured hundreds of Russian contractors fighting on Assad's side during a confrontation in Deir al-Zor province.

U.S. officials said last month pro-Syrian government forces including Russian mercenaries massed near U.S. and U.S.-backed forces in the same region, but a potential confrontation was defused after the U.S. military contacted Russian 
officers.

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday that any military action would not target the Syrian government's allies or anybody in particular, but rather the Syrian government's chemical facilities.

Any U.S. strike similar to the limited one launched last year would not cause a shift in the course of the war that has been going Assad’s way since Russia intervened on his side.

*DEADLY CHEMICAL ATTACK*

Syrian aid workers reported more than 1,000 people injured in the reported gas attack on Douma. Doctors and witnesses said victims showed symptoms of poisoning, possibly by a nerve agent, and reported the smell of chlorine gas.

France and Britain discussed with the Trump administration how to respond to the Douma attack. Both stressed that the culprit still needed to be confirmed.

The Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said Assad's government had been asked to make necessary arrangements for an OPCW investigation team to visit shortly.

The mission will aim to determine whether banned munitions were used but not assign blame.

The Assad government and Russia both urged the OPCW to investigate the allegations, a move by the two countries that was apparently aimed at averting any U.S.-led military action.

A European source said European governments were waiting for the OPCW to carry out its inquiry and for more solid forensic evidence from the attack to emerge. Any plan by Washington and its allies to take military action was likely to be on hold until then, the source told Reuters.

Despite the international revulsion over chemical weapons attacks, the death toll from such incidents in Syria is only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of combatants and civilians killed since the war erupted in 2011.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...ired-at-syria-will-be-shot-down-idUSKBN1HI1BY


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)




----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 11, 2018)

*U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned Russia of a forthcoming response to suspected chemical attack in Syria, declaring that missiles "will be coming" and blasting Moscow for standing by Syrian President Bashar Assad.*

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!' You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!" Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...issiles-will-be-coming-in-syria-idUSKBN1HI1L2


----------



## Garcher (Apr 11, 2018)

Gas Killing Animal

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Apr 11, 2018)

Ahhh yess finally we’re on the cusp of WW3

Reactions: Agree 3 | Sad! 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

Let's get it on!


----------



## Avito (Apr 11, 2018)

Nah nothing major will happen taking such actions could result in direct confrontations with Russia


----------



## Zenith (Apr 11, 2018)

Khaleesi said:


> Ahhh yess finally we’re on the cusp of WW3



I really do not wish for such a disastrous outcome, but if the West has to strike I suggest we do it swiftly and close the curtains on the country known as Russia. Innocent and oblivious Russians will have to pay for the sins of their "beloved" President, but I don't see how else to put this paper tiger to sleep.

This situation kind of reminds me of the Watchmen movie, where Ozymandias takes it upon himself to avert nuclear warfare by blaming Dr. Manhattan and in turn, ultimately saving planet Earth, at the cost of a few American metropolitan cities (deaths in the millions to save billions globally), but gaining the support of the world's politicians. I see something similar here, with the price to pay for global peace being the Russians, as I don't see the Putin man going down without a fight - the man is just too conceited and will drag his country down with him.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Dislike 2


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I really do not wish for such a disastrous outcome, but if the West has to strike I suggest we do it swiftly and close the curtains on the country known as Russia. Innocent and oblivious Russians will have to pay for the sins of their "beloved" President, but I don't see how else to put this paper tiger to sleep.
> 
> This situation kind of reminds me of the Watchmen movie, where Ozymandias takes it upon himself to avert nuclear warfare by blaming Dr. Manhattan and in turn, ultimately saving planet Earth, at the cost of a few American metropolitan cities, but gaining the support of the world's politicians. I see something similar here, with the price to pay for global piece being the Russians, as I don't see the Putin man going down without a fight - the man is just too conceited and will drag his country down with him.


I hate humanity and look forward to WW3 tbh

Reactions: Informative 1 | Optimistic 1 | Old 1


----------



## Zenith (Apr 11, 2018)

autocorrect is such a bitch on mobile


Khaleesi said:


> I hate humanity and look forward to WW3 tbh



 I understand your feelings. It's all this constant fighting and bickering that can really wear down the most optimistic person, but there is hope, you just need to look around. Not everyone is a Putin, it's just that people like him have a lot of power, unfortunately.


----------



## Zenith (Apr 11, 2018)

Avito said:


> Nah nothing major will happen taking such actions could result in direct confrontations with Russia



dude, your avatar is giving me prostate cancer... please do change

Reactions: Agree 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> autocorrect is such a bitch on mobile
> 
> 
> I understand your feelings. It's all this constant fighting and bickering that can really wear down the most optimistic person, but there is hope, you just need to look around. Not everyone is a Putin, it's just that people like him have a lot of power, unfortunately.


Putin, Trump, and Erdogan


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Let's get it on!


i hope you will experience a lot of microagression in the army when you get drafted.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> i hope you will experience a lot of microagression in the army when you get drafted.


Buzzwords strung together don't magically create coherent thought.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Buzzwords strung together don't magically create coherent thought.


tribe, tribe, tribe!!!!!!!


----------



## Avito (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> dude, your avatar is giving me prostate cancer... please do change


Happy to be of service


----------



## Zenith (Apr 11, 2018)

Avito said:


> Happy to be of service


ahah 

I just realised I can adblock Ramsay Bolton... problem solved


----------



## Avito (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> autocorrect is such a bitch on mobile
> 
> 
> I understand your feelings. It's all this constant fighting and bickering that can really wear down the most optimistic person, but there is hope, you just need to look around. Not everyone is a Putin, it's just that people like him have a lot of power, unfortunately.


You can't blame one single person for this situation the Americans are at fault too for the  current condition of middle east. If it wasn't for their cold war the situation would have been much different


----------



## Avito (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> ahah
> 
> I just realised I can adblock Ramsay Bolton... problem solved


See nobody had to change anything and problem is solved


----------



## Avito (Apr 11, 2018)

Khaleesi said:


> Ahhh yess finally we’re on the cusp of WW3





Khaleesi said:


> I hate humanity and look forward to WW3 tbh


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Apr 11, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 1 | Winner 2 | Sad! 2


----------



## Black Mirror (Apr 11, 2018)

Ok, time to look for the next bunker.


----------



## Zenith (Apr 11, 2018)

Nuclear winter?


----------



## Chelydra (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> Nuclear winter?



You mean our winter of nuclear worth?


----------



## Subarashii (Apr 11, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You mean our winter of nuclear worth?


You mean Werther's Original Nuclear Winter?


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Avito said:


>


Cold War never ended and America is the agressor.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Cold War never ended and America is the agressor.


http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-military-jamming-syria-affecting-us-drones-2018-4



Yup, US is aggressor here

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-military-jamming-syria-affecting-us-drones-2018-4
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, US is aggressor here


Long view of history.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-military-jamming-syria-affecting-us-drones-2018-4
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, US is aggressor here



Good, US should get the fuck out of Syria. 
Sadly they will get that oil one way or another.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

Ignition said:


> Good, US should get the fuck out of Syria.
> Sadly they will get that oil one way or another.


Syria doesn't have oil.  The US should go all in on Syria.   We're already there, we need to just stop the half measures and end this.  Russia is driving itself broke, it wouldn't be able to sustain a long term endeavor there.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Syria doesn't have oil.  The US should go all in on Syria.   We're already there, we need to just stop the half measures and end this.  Russia is driving itself broke, it wouldn't be able to sustain a long term endeavor there.



Sorry, it's not Russia that its drowning in debt. You can say russian economy is failing because it's GDP all you want, but fact is that Russia's economic strategy is a long term investment, it's paying all the debt now so it will be debt free in the years to come, meanwhile countries with quickly rising GDP comes from debt money that keeps going uncontrollably.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Optimistic 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 11, 2018)

Also, If this war is not about gas and pipelines , what's it about ? What's the prime motive ?


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Syria doesn't have oil.  The US should go all in on Syria.   We're already there, we need to just stop the half measures and end this.  Russia is driving itself broke, it wouldn't be able to sustain a long term endeavor there.


How long do you plan to occupy it?

Why does Russia deserve suffering?


----------



## Avito (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Cold War never ended and America is the agressor.


Agreed 


Mider T said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-military-jamming-syria-affecting-us-drones-2018-4
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, US is aggressor here


What the fuck is US doing there they need to get the fuck out of complete middle east they got 0 reasons to be there


----------



## GrimaH (Apr 11, 2018)

Drake said:


> What's he going to do?



Wait for the Fox & Friends show for their instructions.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Pocalypse (Apr 11, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> *U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned Russia of a forthcoming response to suspected chemical attack in Syria, declaring that missiles "will be coming" and blasting Moscow for standing by Syrian President Bashar Assad.*
> 
> "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!' You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!" Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...issiles-will-be-coming-in-syria-idUSKBN1HI1L2



> nice, new and _*smart*_

wut 

man this is worrying, this shit is like toys to him


----------



## Pocalypse (Apr 11, 2018)

Khaleesi said:


> I hate humanity and look forward to WW3 tbh



Not until Avengers: Infinity War comes out. I don't want my cinemas to be rekt before that

Reactions: Agree 3 | Funny 2


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> How long do you plan to occupy it?
> 
> Why does Russia deserve suffering?


Hopefully the US doesn't have to occupy.  Russia brings on its own suffering, it's GDP wouldn't be in freefall it stopped engaging in these foolhardy military adventures.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Apr 11, 2018)

Ignition said:


> Sorry, it's not Russia that its drowning in debt. You can say russian economy is failing because it's GDP all you want, but fact is that Russia's economic strategy is a long term investment, it's paying all the debt now so it will be debt free in the years to come, meanwhile countries with quickly rising GDP comes from debt money that keeps going uncontrollably.


 So basically you're a Russian Paid Troll huh?

Reactions: Funny 1 | Dislike 2


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Hopefully the US doesn't have to occupy.  Russia brings on its own suffering, it's GDP wouldn't be in freefall it stopped engaging in these foolhardy military adventures.


Really? Did a mainstream outlet brag about the US decing an election inj Russia? isn't  there some talk of regime change in Russia even right now? Who is surrounded by the bases of whom?

What the US does is adventure, Russia just does defense.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Really? Did a mainstream outlet brag about the US decing an election inj Russia? isn't there some talk of regime change in Russia even right now? Who is surrounded by the bases of whom?
> 
> What the US does is adventure, Russia just does defense.


Your questions are based on false assumptions, so no point in addressing them.

As for Russia defending itself lol.  Did you read the link I just posted about troops moving into Syria, A nation that doesn't even border Russia?


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Your questions are based on false assumptions, so no point in addressing them.
> 
> As for Russia defending itself lol.  Did you read the link I just posted about troops moving into Syria, A nation that doesn't even border Russia?


They had a base there.


----------



## Island (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Cold War never ended and America is the agressor.


The Cold War ended on December 25, 1991.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## EJ (Apr 11, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> *U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned Russia of a forthcoming response to suspected chemical attack in Syria, declaring that missiles "will be coming" and blasting Moscow for standing by Syrian President Bashar Assad.*
> 
> "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!' You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!" Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...issiles-will-be-coming-in-syria-idUSKBN1HI1L2


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Island said:


> The Cold War ended on December 25, 1991.


Have you seen where Nato is and was expanding?


----------



## Island (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Have you seen where Nato is and was expanding?


And?


----------



## Ignition (Apr 11, 2018)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So basically you're a Russian Paid Troll huh?



Go back to NBD, I think it suits you better.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Island said:


> And?


No real need fo it.


----------



## Island (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> No real need fo it.


That's not up to you to decide.

NATO is an alliance, and if former Eastern Bloc countries are interested in joining that alliance, it's their prerogative.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 11, 2018)




----------



## stream (Apr 11, 2018)

Do it. ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Apr 11, 2018)

Is this really a "dog whistle?"


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Island said:


> That's not up to you to decide.
> 
> NATO is an alliance, and if former Eastern Bloc countries are interested in joining that alliance, it's their prerogative.


It's still stupid, antagonistic and uncessary.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Catalyst75 (Apr 11, 2018)

Pocalypse said:


> > nice, new and _*smart*_
> 
> wut
> 
> man this is worrying, this shit is like toys to him



Because he is an idiot obsessed with looking "tough", and the disturbing thing is that there're individuals who would agree that his bravado is him being "tough".


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Apr 11, 2018)

Nothing big will happen russia wont go to war with usa over syria it's not worth it.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> They had a base there.


Also not for defense.  Because Syria isn't Russia.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Also not for defense.  Because Syria isn't Russia.


Carriers are a thing.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Carriers are a thing.


And?  The base nor the carriers are meant for defense?

In b4 you reply with another stupid non-sequitur.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Subarashii (Apr 11, 2018)

So it's been over 24-48 hours...


----------



## Drake (Apr 11, 2018)

Really dumb move by Russia to publicly say that you will shoot down the missile and destroy the launch site. If Trump really was only planning a few missile strikes, then it likely wouldn't have a major effect on Assad's overall campaign. However, now Russia has blundered by trying to appear tough for no reason, and if they really do shoot down the missile and try and sink a US destroyer, they're going to fuck themselves hard. Something like this is not worth starting a war over.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 11, 2018)

Subarashii said:


> So it's been over 24-48 hours...



Since it seems that the UK and perhaps France will join in, i imagine it will take more time to properly coordinate the strikes. For comparison sake, during the event last year(where the US was the sole attacker), the time span from the chemical attack until the US missile response was 3 days.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Mider T said:


> And?  The base nor the carriers are meant for defense?
> 
> In b4 you reply with another stupid non-sequitur.


Because Russia is a giant country it's more than just border defense.


----------



## Island (Apr 11, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Because Russia is a giant country it's more than just border defense.


What is it, exactly?


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 11, 2018)

Island said:


> What is it, exactly?


21. century big power geopolitcs.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Apr 11, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I really do not wish for such a disastrous outcome, but if the West has to strike I suggest we do it swiftly and close the curtains on the country known as Russia. Innocent and oblivious Russians will have to pay for the sins of their "beloved" President, but I don't see how else to put this paper tiger to sleep.
> 
> This situation kind of reminds me of the Watchmen movie, where Ozymandias takes it upon himself to avert nuclear warfare by blaming Dr. Manhattan and in turn, ultimately saving planet Earth, at the cost of a few American metropolitan cities (deaths in the millions to save billions globally), but gaining the support of the world's politicians. I see something similar here, with the price to pay for global peace being the Russians, as I don't see the Putin man going down without a fight - the man is just too conceited and will drag his country down with him.



You know Ozymandias is the villain right

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Apr 11, 2018)

Island said:


> The Cold War ended on December 25, 1991.



And Cold War 2 is likely to start in a year that starts with 201


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Apr 11, 2018)

I literally can't say for sure whether a WW3 would end with a number of human survivors in the planet greater than zero.

That alone should be enough to fear it.

On the other hand, a Cold War 2 is way more likely than a World War 3.


----------



## αce (Apr 11, 2018)

It's already cold war 2

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 12, 2018)

It's been for quite some time, the information war mostly, nowadays we live in a fake news era where most everything we see is either staged or/and fabricated to manipulate the public.

Remember the so called humanitarian heroes, the white helmets? what a laughingstock, plain from a hollywood movie, just like its Nobel Peace prize.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 12, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I really do not wish for such a disastrous outcome, but if the West has to strike I suggest we do it swiftly and close the curtains on the country known as Russia. Innocent and oblivious Russians will have to pay for the sins of their "beloved" President, but I don't see how else to put this paper tiger to sleep.
> 
> This situation kind of reminds me of the Watchmen movie, where Ozymandias takes it upon himself to avert nuclear warfare by blaming Dr. Manhattan and in turn, ultimately saving planet Earth, at the cost of a few American metropolitan cities (deaths in the millions to save billions globally), but gaining the support of the world's politicians. I see something similar here, with the price to pay for global peace being the Russians, as I don't see the Putin man going down without a fight - the man is just too conceited and will drag his country down with him.


It makes so much sense that you would see Ozymandius as a hero instead of the villain


----------



## Catalyst75 (Apr 12, 2018)

Parallax said:


> It makes so much sense that you would see Ozymandius as a hero instead of the villain





People root for the characters they feel they most identify with.

And he's missing Doomsday Clock, from the sound of things.  The world's on the edge of nuclear war after the truth got out.

And Putin's got the other half of the nuclear arsenal that would spell nuclear winter and death for the world, if he's provoked far enough (either Putin or Trump could pull the trigger first).


----------



## Tarot (Apr 12, 2018)

Jesus christ, how many times are gonna teeter towards nuclear war this year.


----------



## Avito (Apr 12, 2018)

It's just Vlad and trumph trying to prove that their dick is bigger nothing much


----------



## Zenith (Apr 12, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> You know Ozymandias is the villain right



You've missed the entire point of the Watchmen if you think you can place the characters in the traditional dichotomy of hero and villain. I suggest you rewatch it.


Parallax said:


> It makes so much sense that you would see Ozymandius as a hero instead of the villain



He's not a villain, just as Rorschach is not a hero.

I also suggest you rewatch the movie. The point is, characters are not static, they can do both good and bad. If Ozymandias was a pure villain, Dr. Manhattan would've gotten rid of him as he would've used his superior intelligence to establish that Oz was a threat to humanity, but he rather took the blame for the nuclear warheads as he figured, that ultimately what Oz was trying to do was save the Earth - albeit in a crude way, at the expense of himself [Dr. Manhattan].

This is not Dragon Ball where Goku is the good guy and Frieza the bad. It's more nuanced than that.

Going back to why I used the Watchmen example, Putin has been posturing and grandstanding for too long, and if in his hubris drags the entire country to war with him, then I don't want mankind to reach extinction and would rather close the curtains on Russia alone, at the expense of innocent and oblivious Russians (kill millions in order to save billions worldwide).



Catalyst75 said:


> People root for the characters they feel they most identify with.
> 
> And he's missing Doomsday Clock, from the sound of things.  The world's on the edge of nuclear war after the truth got out.
> 
> And Putin's got the other half of the nuclear arsenal that would spell nuclear winter and death for the world, if he's provoked far enough (either Putin or Trump could pull the trigger first).



Quite an interesting read, but I don't identify with anyone from the movie. If I really had to pick a character close to my personality, it's Manhattan for sure, not Oz. The entire monologue about being tired of Earth and being "caught up in the tangle of other people's lives" is like the story of my life.

I googled Doomsday Clock and it's a 2017 book, so the overwhelming majority of people would still know about the 2009 Movie and the comics prior to that. Besides, my objective was not to get down with technicalities, it was to highlight the fact that sometimes you have to make difficult choices where a happy ending is not one of them.

For example, if Rorschach hadn't written his journal, Oz's ruse wouldn't have been uncovered, so ultimately, peace would've been attained. Peace built on a lie but peace nonetheless. So Rorschach's _truth_ is what caused humanity to be on the brink of nuclear warfare (again).

It infinitely pains me how people can read thought provoking material and not learn a bloody thing from it, but oh well, like Dr. Manhattan, I'm getting to the point of being tired of dealing with people. Too bad I can't just camp on Mars.


----------



## Zenith (Apr 12, 2018)

Avito said:


> It's just Vlad and trumph trying to prove that their dick is bigger nothing much



you'd be shocked how many wars were fought in history by little men trying to compensate for their insecurities

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## wibisana (Apr 12, 2018)

αce said:


> It's already cold war 2


Yeah main player is KSA and Iran


----------



## Avito (Apr 12, 2018)

Zenith said:


> You've missed the entire point of the Watchmen if you think you can place the characters in the traditional dichotomy of hero and villain. I suggest you rewatch it.


Rewatch? 
Read the comic dude movie was good but skips a lot of things


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 12, 2018)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> And Cold War 2 is likely to start in a year that starts with 201





αce said:


> It's already cold war 2





Ignition said:


> It's been for quite some time, the information war mostly, nowadays we live in a fake news era where most everything we see is either staged or/and fabricated to manipulate the public.
> 
> Remember the so called humanitarian heroes, the white helmets? what a laughingstock, plain from a hollywood movie, just like its Nobel Peace prize.



In my obviously biased opinion, Cold War II started in 2010, when China surpassed American ally Japan as the #2 economy. This placed America at direct threat of being overtaken by a hostile power, without any friendly buffer states to cushion the statistics.

The formal political declaration of Cold War would be Obama's 2012 "Pivot to Asia", and related territorial provocations in the same year like the Japanese nationalization of the Diaoyu Islands and Chinese proclamation of a "municipality" in the South China Sea.


----------



## Brian (Apr 12, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 6 | Winner 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 12, 2018)

Brian said:


>


Just get the fuck out of there already;


----------



## Mider T (Apr 12, 2018)

Ignition said:


> Sorry, it's not Russia that its drowning in debt. You can say russian economy is failing because it's GDP all you want, but fact is that Russia's economic strategy is a long term investment, it's paying all the debt now so it will be debt free in the years to come, meanwhile countries with quickly rising GDP comes from debt money that keeps going uncontrollably.


8/10 meme, I lol'd.


----------



## Ashi (Apr 12, 2018)

Brian said:


>



We’ll definitely attack Syria! Maybe idk



Tremendous, Believe me!


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Apr 12, 2018)

Ashi said:


> We’ll definitely attack Syria! Maybe idk
> 
> 
> 
> Tremendous, Believe me!


Super smart decisions will be made at some point sometime in the near, or possibly distant, future - maybe.

Need I remind you that it's, like, super intelligent.

-----

Real talk, it's curious how the morons are always needing to remind people of how "smart" they are.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 12, 2018)

Mider T said:


> 8/10 meme, I lol'd.



Care to elaborate? 
or actually nvm, I've seen enough anti-russian comments from you to know this will go nowhere.


----------



## Magic (Apr 12, 2018)

Thank you America

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Apr 12, 2018)

RemChu said:


> Thank you America


----------



## Mr. Good vibes (Apr 12, 2018)

Now let's see if this situation plays out the exact same way as last years strike which just so happened to occur around the same time last year where Syria supposedly gassed their own people which we still don't have any evidence of as Mattis admitted a few months back.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 12, 2018)

Zenith said:


> You've missed the entire point of the Watchmen if you think you can place the characters in the traditional dichotomy of hero and villain. I suggest you rewatch it.
> 
> 
> He's not a villain, just as Rorschach is not a hero.
> ...



I've read the comic book i don't like the movie


----------



## Mider T (Apr 12, 2018)

Ignition said:


> Care to elaborate?
> or actually nvm, I've seen enough anti-russian comments from you to know this will go nowhere.


I'm not anti-Russian lol I just think people that fall for their excuses are gullible children.


----------



## Ashi (Apr 12, 2018)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Super smart decisions will be made at some point sometime in the near, or possibly distant, future - maybe.
> 
> Need I remind you that it's, like, super intelligent.
> 
> ...




Trump-Sama doesn't need to waste his time "demonstrating" intellect

Just look at him! Every breath he utters is proof of his genius!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 12, 2018)

Yami Munesanzun said:


>


Slowly, from an impotent clown maytbe next time we get to someone who pulls the fuck out.


----------



## Chelydra (Apr 13, 2018)

So Russia did an amazing job of shooting down our missiles and hitting the launch sites.


----------



## Jon Moxley (Apr 13, 2018)

Whelp major decision has been made, they attacked


----------



## Atlas (Apr 13, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 5 | Winner 2 | Sad! 1


----------



## Magic (Apr 13, 2018)

Irony level over 9000.


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Apr 13, 2018)

Friday the 13th indeed.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2018)

*U.S., British and French forces pounded Syria with air strikes early on Saturday in response to a poison gas attack that killed dozens of people last week, in the biggest intervention by Western powers against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.*

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the military action from the White House late on Friday. As he spoke, explosions rocked Damascus. British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said the UK and France had joined in the attack.

Trump said he was prepared to sustain the response until Assad's government stopped its use of chemical weapons.

The strikes were the biggest intervention by Western powers against Assad in the country’s seven-year-old civil war and pitted the United States and its allies against Russia, which itself intervened in the war in 2015 to back Assad.

"A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad," Trump said in a televised address from the White House.

Speaking of Assad and his suspected role in last week's chemical weapons attack, Trump said, "These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."

A U.S. official told Reuters the strikes were aimed at multiple targets and involved Tomahawk cruise missiles.

At least six loud explosions were heard in Damascus in the early hours of Saturday and smoke was seen rising over the Syrian capital, a Reuters witness said. A second witness said the Barzah district of Damascus had been hit in the strikes. Barzah is the location of a major Syrian scientific research center.

At a Pentagon briefing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said the targets included a Syrian research facility and a chemical weapons storage facility.

A second U.S. official said targets were being carefully selected with the aim of damaging Assad’s ability to conduct further gas attacks, while avoiding the risk of spreading poisonous fallout in civilian areas.

"The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons," Trump said.

The U.S. president, who has tried to build good relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, had sharply critical words for both Russia and Iran, which have backed Assad's government.

"To Iran and to Russia, I ask, what kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?" Trump said.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said she had authorized British armed forces "to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability." She described it as a "limited and targeted strike" aimed at minimizing civilian casualties.

The military action is not about intervening in Syria's civil war or changing its government, she said.

It was not immediately clear how extensive the strikes were. U.S. officials had earlier said that Trump had pressed for a more aggressive U.S. strike against Syria than his military chiefs had recommended.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Matt and other military leaders had warned that the larger the attack, the greater the risk of a confrontation with Russia, two U.S. officials said.

Trump made clear in his eight-minute television address that he is wary of a deeper entanglement in Syria, where about 2,000 U.S. troops have been deployed to fight Islamic State.

"America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria," he said.

The air strikes, however, risk dragging the United States further into Syria's civil war, particularly if Russia, Iran and Ass opt to retaliate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...nce-launch-air-strikes-in-syria-idUSKBN1HJ0ZS


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2018)

Europe can into bang-bang?

Reactions: Lewd 1


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 13, 2018)

Trump: We're going to retaliate

days later.

Trump: I didn't say when

few more days later.

Putin over phone to Trump: My guys are out.

Trump: Ok now we fire and hit nothing of importance.

Reactions: Funny 2 | Useful 1


----------



## Drake (Apr 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> So Russia did an amazing job of shooting down our missiles and hitting the launch sites.



Lol, this is what Putin gets for trying to be the tough guy, and now he just looks stupid. Good luck taking on Britain, France, and the US all at once.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 13, 2018)

Interesting how these 3 countries (US, UK, France) have a debt that they will never be able to pay, this is all bullshit and pretext.


----------



## Black Mirror (Apr 13, 2018)

So if Russia attacks the US marine now, the world is done?

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2018)

Ignition said:


> Interesting how these 3 countries (US, UK, France) have a debt that they will never be able to pay, this is all bullshit and pretext.



You're not referencing the pilot episode of Star Trek: Voyager from 23 years ago, I hope?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 13, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> You're not referencing the pilot episode of Star Trek: Voyager from 23 years ago, I hope?



What episode is this?



Nemesis said:


> Trump: We're going to retaliate
> 
> days later.
> 
> ...



Well to be fair, this also reduces the risk of NATO escalating the conflict into a full blown war with Russian forces too.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 13, 2018)

Now let's see how credible Russia is. Are they going to do the usual bitching at the UN or are they gonna retaliate somehow


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2018)

hcheng02 said:


> What episode is this?



"Caretaker", obviously.


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 13, 2018)

So basically we've got 3 of the U.N. Security Council P5 there. Potentially getting ready to fight one of the remaining 2.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 13, 2018)

I have to laugh at the people who honestly thought that Trump would be a peacenik's choice compared that Warmongering Crooked Hillary.



Now we've got a warmonger only without the benefit of foreign policy expertise, emotional stability, and the ability to listen to good counsel.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 13, 2018)



Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 10 | Winner 1


----------



## Magic (Apr 13, 2018)

LOL mega


----------



## Gino (Apr 13, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 13, 2018)

Wonder what happened to our fellas who thought he wouldn't wage war or deploy troops like Obama and Busch did?


----------



## egressmadara (Apr 13, 2018)

Hillary.....


----------



## Six (Apr 13, 2018)

Isn't this what Blumphkins kept saying Hillary would do?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Apr 13, 2018)

egressmadara said:


> Hillary.....


_#But-Tree Males_


----------



## Magic (Apr 13, 2018)

egressmadara said:


> Hillary.....


BUT KILLARYY

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 13, 2018)

Gino said:


>

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Magic (Apr 13, 2018)

"Jesus take the wheel."


----------



## Alwaysmind (Apr 14, 2018)

If I recall correctly France and GB left the Levant in perfect order a 100 years ago. Clearly there is experience.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Six (Apr 14, 2018)

Well, I sure as hell am not gonna fight for Israël anybody over something like this


----------



## Gino (Apr 14, 2018)

Honestly, I can't even pretend to be surprised at this shitshow.This is how this world functions apparently purposeful chaos and disorder.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 14, 2018)

Russia shouldn't be so offended by the US, UK France strikes. It's not like a certain country that attacks and killed one of their pilot....but now everything is forgotten.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 14, 2018)

Oooo stayed alive long enough for a title change nice


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 14, 2018)

This is real, btw

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaharrison said:


> This is real, btw


----------



## Ashi (Apr 14, 2018)

Why is he like this....


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> Why is he like this...,.



Dementia.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 14, 2018)

Great news, fellow white posters.

According to Syrian State TV, Russia Today, al-Manar, the Kremlin, and presstv, the attack was an utter failure. I believe these sources, because why would they lie? 

They report that All the missiles were shot down.

Syria and Russia used this cutting edge tactic of using Research Facilities and Military HQ's to take down the missiles.

It looks like that this revolutionary system not only somehow attracted the missiles, but successfully destroyed each and every one of them with a fireball.

Not a single missile was seen still going over the city. We can surely say that the USA is outmatched against Russia.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Ashi (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaharrison said:


> Great news, fellow white posters.
> 
> According to Syrian State TV, Russia Today, al-Manar, the Kremlin, and presstv, the attack was an utter failure. I believe these sources, because why would they lie?
> 
> ...



Can you joke about this somewhere else? This isn't getting any funnier


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaharrison said:


> This is real, btw



.....They weren't hacked right? Cause oh boy that is disturbing.


----------



## Six (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaharrison said:


> Great news, fellow white posters.
> 
> According to Syrian State TV, Russia Today, al-Manar, the Kremlin, and presstv, the attack was an utter failure. I believe these sources, because why would they lie?
> 
> ...


If this is true, is it strange that I'm happy the US failed?


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Anyway I thought Trump was going to keep us out of these foreign entanglements but I suppose he is going for the old classic. Worried about Scandals at home? Do what America does best when its not Nam...kick some foreign ass. Cause nothing says Large and in Charge like tactical air strikes in the Middle East.


----------



## Chelydra (Apr 14, 2018)

Snake said:


> If this is true, is it strange that I'm happy the US failed?



It's a joke.


----------



## Six (Apr 14, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> It's a joke.


Well, apparently 13 missles were actually shot down and only 3 civillians were hurt.


----------



## Six (Apr 14, 2018)

I mean, if the attack did actual damage, I assume they'd be extremely pissed.


----------



## Chelydra (Apr 14, 2018)

Snake said:


> Well, apparently 13 missles were actually shot down and only 3 civillians were hurt.


Highly doubtful. Russian military is shit.


----------



## Blue (Apr 14, 2018)

Well, I didn't vote for the big orange retard in 2016.

But President Trump earned my vote in 2020.

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1 | Sad! 2


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> Well, I didn't vote for the big orange retard in 2016.
> 
> But President Trump earned my vote in 2020.



That assumes Trump makes it to 2020. I wait until after Midterms to predict whether Trump will make it.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Apr 14, 2018)

All that big talk from trump and most missiles have been intercepted.


----------



## Blue (Apr 14, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> That assumes Trump makes it to 2020. I wait until after Midterms to predict whether Trump will make it.


I got BTFO'd a thread like 6 months ago saying that Russia is fake news, do people still believe that's going to happen?



Prince Vegeta said:


> All that big talk from trump and most missiles have been intercepted.


Bro
The US has more missiles than God. If they didn't hit, we'd just launch more. 
But let's be real.
They hit.


----------



## Six (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> Well, I didn't vote for the big orange retard in 2016.
> 
> But President Trump earned my vote in 2020.


Russia sure as hell isn't gonna help him again.


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> I got BTFO'd a thread like 6 months ago saying that Russia is fake news, do people still believe that's going to happen?
> 
> 
> Bro
> ...



Does it matter Clinton got Impeached for sex with an intern and lying about it. Trump lies all the time so are you asking me whether I think a Democratic controlled House would Impeach Trump...the answer is obviously yes.


----------



## Blue (Apr 14, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> Does it matter Clinton got Impeached for sex with an intern and lying about it. Trump lies all the time so are you asking me whether I think a Democratic controlled House would Impeach Trump...the answer is obviously yes.


Clinton lied under oath. That's a crime.

Lying in general is not.

Also you'd need a majority in the house to ratify articles of impeachment and that won't happen soon. Maybe in 2020 if things go really shitty for Republicans.


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

You think if Trump has go under oath...he won't Perjure himself...that is some serious optimism.


----------



## quicksilver (Apr 14, 2018)

I always get a bit jingoistic on the first day of a war. Then the consequences set in. By the end, I'm just numb to it all.


----------



## Blue (Apr 14, 2018)

zeroantizero said:


> I always get a bit jingoistic on the first day of a war. Then the consequences set in. By the end, I'm just numb to it all.


This ain't a war. It was target practice and clearing out some older Tomahawks.


----------



## Ashi (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> This ain't a war. It was target practice and clearing out some older Tomahawks.




I mean where do you think this Target practice is gonna lead to though?

You really think Syria's gonna take this lying down?


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> I mean where do you think this Target practice is gonna lead to though?
> 
> You really think Syria's gonna take this lying down?



Course, they will. Syria is no threat to the US and Russia aint going to WWIII over Syria.


----------



## Blue (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> I mean where do you think this Target practice is gonna lead to though?
> 
> You really think Syria's gonna take this lying down?


Yes. What else are they supposed to do? Neither they nor Russia is capable of defeating a bunch of tribals with rifles who aren't even hiding. 

The fuck do you think they're gonna do to the world hegemon? 

The answer is: Lodge a protest at the UN.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> You really think Syria's gonna take this lying down?



Yes

Israel bombs them weekly, they never do jackshit.


----------



## Saishin (Apr 14, 2018)

These three countries always cause troubles,look at the mess they did in Lybia 
And now he's one of those leaders


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Saishin said:


> These three countries always cause troubles,look at the mess they did in Lybia
> 
> And now he's one of those leaders



Screwing other countries especially in Africa and Asia...its way they do best.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 14, 2018)

Yes, the US, the UK and France pit in danger the great heaven that is Syria by attacking chemical facilities. I fear that the country won't survive after that.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 14, 2018)

If this is the extent of the reply to the chemical attacks, then i question whether this is a big enough  deterent for Syria to finally get the message. I sorta doubt it because the regime has proved itself to not only be exceptionally evil, but exceptionally stupid as well. Almost self-defeatingly so.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)

Assad so evil, truly a monster!


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)

Meanwhile these countries promote human rights,democracy and freedom while bombing, provoking, lying non-stop, promoting fake news and propaganda, having more blood on their hands than Russia could possibly archieve 

Curious about Ukraine in the last panel, considering it was NATO who was mostly involved in Ukrainian Maidan.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Mr. Good vibes (Apr 14, 2018)

A bit late but it's worth asking whats is the end goal here exactly in bombing Syria for a third time and more importantly why do we care that "they gassed" their civilians.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Ashi (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> Yes. What else are they supposed to do? Neither they nor Russia is capable of defeating a bunch of tribals with rifles who aren't even hiding.
> 
> The fuck do you think they're gonna do to the world hegemon?
> 
> The answer is: Lodge a protest at the UN.





Megaharrison said:


> Yes
> 
> Israel bombs them weekly, they never do jackshit.



Okay, lemme rephrase my question by saying that the Russian ambassador pretty much announced that US actions are gonna have consequences 

I don’t think it’s fair to write them off as push-overs like this you two are doing


----------



## Blue (Apr 14, 2018)

WT said:


> Sponsor terrorism.


Great; that'll give us the excuse we need to occupy.



Ashi said:


> I don’t think it’s fair to write them off as push-overs like this you two are doing


I think it's perfectly fair, but I guess we'll see.



Ignition said:


> Meanwhile these countries promote human rights,democracy and freedom while bombing, provoking, lying non-stop, promoting fake news and propaganda, having more blood on their hands than Russia could possibly archieve
> 
> Curious about Ukraine in the last panel, considering it was NATO who was mostly involved in Ukrainian Maidan.


Bro, you need to stop smoking the RT crackpipe. 

-Bombing
Yep
-Provoking
Provoking China, maybe. Nobody else is really worth provoking.
-Lying
Not really.
-fake news and propaganda
I'm not gonna say a lot of American news isn't fake, but it's not the government pushing it. Obviously. Or they wouldn't be trying to hard to bring down our government.
-Having more blood on hands than Russia
Almost impossible. We'd need nukes.

-NATO in Ukraine
Yeah, nah. That was Russia.

Are you a Russian astroturfer?

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> -NATO in Ukraine
> Yeah, nah. That was Russia.




Stop pretending you know about what happened in Ukraine

Reactions: Sad! 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> Okay, lemme rephrase my question by saying that the Russian ambassador pretty much announced that US actions are gonna have consequences
> 
> I don’t think it’s fair to write them off as push-overs like this you two are doing



Russian "consequences" = bitch to the UN and do some flyovers in the Arctic


----------



## Ashi (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaharrison said:


> Russian "consequences" = bitch to the UN and do some flyovers in the Arctic



Isn’t the reason we don’t wanna fuck with Russia because of the fact they have their own fair share of nuclear arms?

Are you really trying to tempt fate like that?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 14, 2018)

These strikes are not a big deal for Russia. It's just a answer to the chemical attack. It destroyed facilities and no one were killed. We won't see other strikes from France, UK and the US until an other chemical attack happens.
Diplomatically, all parties faces are saved.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 14, 2018)

Le Male Absolu said:


> These strikes are not a big deal for Russia. It's just a answer to the chemical attack. It destroyed facilities and no one were killed. We won't see other strikes from France, UK and the US until an other chemical attack happens.
> Diplomatically, all parties faces are saved.



In that case, the attacks hasn't really achieved it's objectives has it? The point of it, from my understanding, was to either deny the regime the capabilities to use chemical weapons in the future or at the very least strike hard enough to deter them. If it's merely a symbolic reaction like last year, then it will have accomplished very little.


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2018)

Alwaysmind said:


> If I recall correctly France and GB left the Levant in perfect order a 100 years ago. Clearly there is experience.



IIRC especially France feels a sense of guardianship over their former colonies, of which Syria is one.



Saishin said:


> These three countries always cause troubles, look at the mess they did in Lybia



Is Italy one to talk here?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

Italy didn't do much since the Fall of the Roman Empire.


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> Italy didn't do much since the Fall of the Roman Empire.



Except colonize Libya.


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 14, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Except colonize Libya.



Compared to USA, UK AND FRANCE....they did little.


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

Interesting bits from the FT articles:



> The Syrian military said the US, UK and France fired 110 missiles during the joint attack. Syrian state TV said Syrian forces had downed 13 incoming missiles, and showed calm scenes in the Damascus morning. “Our air defences effectively shot down most of them,” said Brigadier General Ali Mayhoub



And then in another article:



> The Russian defence ministry said Russia observed 103 cruise missiles fired by US and British forces, 71 of which had been intercepted by the Syrian military.
> 
> “This shows the strong effectiveness of the equipment in Syria and the excellent training of the Syrian soldiers whom we trained,” the ministry said. It added that Russia had completely rebuilt Syria’s air defence systems and continued to modernise them.



The Math clearly doesn't add up so either Syria or Russia is lying or both. Besides, the strike was very targeted so neither Syria nor Russia should take this as a merit to their own military but rather the joint forces not wanting to escalate tension.



Onewhosbeenaround said:


> A bit late but it's worth asking whats is the end goal here exactly in bombing Syria for a third time and more importantly why do we care that "they gassed" their civilians.



oh so it's ok for countries to murder their own people or people on their soil. Point taken. I do hope you turn a blind eye when Europe decides to throw their refugees in the sea and feed them to the sharks. Who needs diplomacy and international treaties when sovereign nations can violate human rights? Wow, never knew it was that easy.



Ignition said:


> Stop pretending you know about what happened in Ukraine



The fact that you're using Farage in a serious way just shows how out of touch you are. The man you're quoting is the same that manipulated the gullible British voters into committing a national act of self-harm that became known as Brexit, purely for his political gain. Next day after the Brexit referendum, Farage was nowhere to be found when it came to advising or executing the transition and divorce from the EU.

He's a salamander!



Jin-E said:


> In that case, the attacks hasn't really achieved it's objectives has it? The point of it, from my understanding, was to either deny the regime the capabilities to use chemical weapons in the future or at the very least strike hard enough to deter them. If it's merely a symbolic reaction like last year, then it will have accomplished very little.



I generally agree with this sentiment, from the reports it doesn't look like the regime's chemical arsenal has been impaired or even heavily damaged at all.

Top US General Mattis said regarding the strike:



> the US has been "very precise and proportionate, but at the same time it was a heavy strike"





> "This time we and our allies have struck harder." (harder than the previous strike)



Assad didn't get the message the first time, and won't get it this time around. I'm of the opinion the joint forces should've hit way harder, the joint alliance needs to put the fear of god in Assad's heart.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> Interesting bits from the FT articles:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you're calling for drastic escalation which could lead to WW3. on another note, it's funny watching you act as though you give a damn about civilian lives, but bitch up and down upon an increase of refugees depending upon the nation they are migrating to. it's also funny watching you beat the war-drum against Russia above anything. because fuck the citizens over there, right? 

i hope people of your mindset don't obtain an increasing amount of power, the world would become in ruins with your way of thinking.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

EJ said:


> you're calling for drastic escalation which could lead to WW3. on another note, it's funny watching you act as though you give a damn about civilian lives, but bitch up and down upon an increase of refugees depending upon the nation they are migrating to. it's also funny watching you beat the war-drum against Russia above anything. because fuck the citizens over there, right?



It's only funny if you have established that I don't care about civilian lives, like you seem to have done already. I find it fruitless to argue with someone who listens to the voices in his head rather than what is being factually argued.

Another thing is, your formatting is all over the place, the lack of proper capitalisation is discomforting. Please do fix ... when that happens, I'll actually bother replying to you.



> i hope people of your mindset don't obtain an increasing amount of power, the world would become in ruins with your way of thinking.


 
: )

Luckily I will, but that's a topic for another day.


----------



## Kroczilla (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> Okay, lemme rephrase my question by saying that the Russian ambassador pretty much announced that US actions are gonna have consequences
> 
> I don’t think it’s fair to write them off as push-overs like this you two are doing




what are they gonna do, slam sanctions? 
might as well flush what's left of their economy down the toilet.


----------



## Kroczilla (Apr 14, 2018)

Ashi said:


> Okay, lemme rephrase my question by saying that the Russian ambassador pretty much announced that US actions are gonna have consequences
> 
> I don’t think it’s fair to write them off as push-overs like this you two are doing




what are they gonna do, slam sanctions? 
might as well flush what's left of their economy down the toilet.


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> It's only funny if you have established that I don't care about civilian lives, like you seem to have done already. I find it fruitless to argue with someone who listens to the voices in his head rather than what is being factually argued.
> 
> Another thing is, your formatting is all over the place, the lack of proper capitalisation is discomforting. Please do fix



it's really simple. if your argument addresses:

"Who needs diplomacy and international treaties when sovereign nations can violate human rights?"

then you wouldn't be stating we need to take drastic measures and put the "fear of God in Assad", since anyone should be able to understand that will up the casualtry rate towards civilians at a higher capacity. above all else "Close the curtain on Russia", do you know what the fuck that even means? obviously you don't, so no, don't make it seem as though you give a shit about the casualties or the victims of a specific country if you have the inability to account for the acctions of western civilizations towards these other countries.

i have seen you complain up and down about refugees, and you seem to also fail to understand what drastic measures of which you're calling for can cause in terms of casualties or citizens migrating towards other parts of the world to seek refuge.

i wonder if types such as yourself will readily throw yourselves on the front-lines with how ready you are for nations to target these other countries which you ironically find a threat.


----------



## wibisana (Apr 14, 2018)

If i was a dictator i wouldnt want to have chem-bio weapon.
It only bring trouble tbh.

N weapon tho, it ia kinda great to have 10-100


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 14, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> IIRC especially France feels a sense of guardianship over their former colonies, of which Syria is one.


Not so much for Syria to be honest. If we really cared that much , we would be on the frontline. I would expect this frontline position by France for Lebanon but not for Syria.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

Another excerpt from the article I quoted previously:



> Russian president Vladimir Putin condemned the attack “in the most serious terms”, saying it had violated the principles of international law and constituted “an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism”.



This is why the Putin man's spell works only with his own people because of the choke hold he has on Russia's flow of information. For everyone outside of Russia that can document themselves, he's antics come off as little more than teenage bravado to gain international "respect".

He has no problem siding with Assad gassing his own people, but when foreign nations rightfully step in to prevent a sovereign nation from going tyrannical on its people, he condemns the response as an "international crime and a threat to national sovereignty". He has no problem violating the West's sovereignty when poisoning Skripal on British soil, but wants to summon a UN meeting to cry about the West being bad bullies. it's like he thinks everyone on this planet is a Russian and doesn't have access to information.



> However, in contrast to threats made by a senior Russian military official last month and several Russian officials over the past week, the Russian president made no mention of the possibility that Russian forces could strike back at the US military.



Of course they won't do jack as usual, they'll get vaporised after all!

If Putin wants Russia to be recognised on the international stage, the best he could do for his country is to fade in the background for a solid 150-200 years, and implement proper economic reform, and have the country come back as a realistic and fearsome opponent, instead of the paper tiger it currently is. He should learn from China.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 14, 2018)

Jin-E said:


> In that case, the attacks hasn't really achieved it's objectives has it? The point of it, from my understanding, was to either deny the regime the capabilities to use chemical weapons in the future or at the very least strike hard enough to deter them. If it's merely a symbolic reaction like last year, then it will have accomplished very little.


The point in reality is just to answer for each chemical attack and do not repeat the "mistake" of Obama for not taking action when the "red line" was crossed. It really damage Obama reliability and credibility.


----------



## Saishin (Apr 14, 2018)

So he recognized himself as a bad leader 


mr_shadow said:


> IIRC especially France feels a sense of guardianship over their former colonies, of which Syria is one.
> 
> 
> 
> Is Italy one to talk here?


Italy is a peaceful country,it always had good relations with every other countries (like Sweden) why we should attack a nation that has done nothing against us?

That being said PM Gentiloni released a statement basically saying that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and that after the airstrikes of the Justice League in specific areas he hopes for a diplomatic solution.Also he said that no US jets took off from US bases in Italy.


Skaddix said:


> Italy didn't do much since the Fall of the Roman Empire.


Italy is against by the constitution to the use of the military force as a solution to international problems unless it is for justified reasons like peacekeeping operations or unless the country is involved directly in a war or invaded.

*Art. 11 of Italy's constitution*
Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes. Italy agrees, on conditions of equality with other States, to the limitations of sovereignty that may be necessary to a world order ensuring peace and justice among the Nations. Italy promotes and encourages international organisations furthering such ends.


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> Compared to USA, UK AND FRANCE....they did little.



But they did colonize Libya specifically, which makes it ironic that an Italian would criticize others for "wrecking" that particular country.

More broadly Italy arrived late to the imperialism game because the country wasn't unified until 1861. But I would consider Italy's soft power to have been* immense* during the Renaissance, and from 1522 I would actually count the Papal States centered on Rome as a predecessor state to modern Italy, because from that year until 1978 all Popes were ethnic Italians. I think it must have been the Reformation that scared them into ceasing to appoint "foreign" cardinals to the papacy.

The 456-year monopoly on the papacy obviously gave "Italy" immense indirect control over the Catholic empires Portugal, Spain, and France. For example the Holy Father could be called on to arbitrate border disputes between the three in their overseas possessions, as in the .

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## wibisana (Apr 14, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> But they did colonize Libya specifically, which makes it ironic that an Italian would criticize others for "wrecking" that particular country.
> 
> More broadly Italy arrived late to the imperialism game because the country wasn't unified until 1861. But I would consider Italy's soft power to have been* immense* during the Renaissance, and from 1522 I would actually count the Papal States centered on Rome as a predecessor state to modern Italy, because from that year until 1978 all Popes were ethnic Italians. I think it must have been the Reformation that scared them into ceasing to appoint "foreign" cardinals to the papacy.
> 
> The 456-year monopoly on the papacy obviously gave "Italy" immense indirect control over the Catholic empires Portugal, Spain, and France. For example the Holy Father could be called on to arbitrate border disputes between the three in their overseas possessions, as in the .


Grandpa's sin is not my sin

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Saishin (Apr 14, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> But they did colonize Libya specifically, which makes it ironic that an Italian would criticize others for "wrecking" that particular country.
> 
> More broadly Italy arrived late to the imperialism game because the country wasn't unified until 1861. But I would consider Italy's soft power to have been* immense* during the Renaissance, and from 1522 I would actually count the Papal States centered on Rome as a predecessor state to modern Italy, because from that year until 1978 all Popes were ethnic Italians. I think it must have been the Reformation that scared them into ceasing to appoint "foreign" cardinals to the papacy.
> 
> The 456-year monopoly on the papacy obviously gave "Italy" immense indirect control over the Catholic empires Portugal, Spain, and France. For example the Holy Father could be called on to arbitrate border disputes between the three in their overseas possessions, as in the .


Italy was great untill the Renaissance,the contribution that Italy gave to the world in the fields of art,engineering,architecture,finance in that specific period as you said was immense.

You know that the colonies under Italy ruling saw a good development and administration from the Italians? In the case of Somalia I post this.We were much better than the Britis,French (and Americans ) in administrate a colony 

*In 1949, when the British military administration ended, Italian Somaliland became a  known as the . Under Italian administration, this trust territory lasted ten years, from 1950 to 1960, with legislative elections held in  and .*

*During the 1950s, with UN funds pouring in and the presence of experienced Italian administrators who had come to see the region as their home, infrastructural and educational development blossomed in the region. School enrollment during this period was free.The decade passed relatively without incident, and was marked by positive growth in virtually all aspects of local life.

The conditional return of Italian administration to southern Somalia gave the new trust territory several unique advantages compared with other African colonies. To the extent that Italy held the territory by UN mandate, the trusteeship provisions gave the Somalis the opportunity to gain experience in political education and self-government. These were advantages that British Somaliland, which was to be incorporated into the new Somali state, did not have. Although in the 1950s British colonial officials attempted, through various development efforts, to make up for past neglect, the protectorate stagnated. The disparity between the two territories in economic development and political experience would cause serious difficulties when it came time to integrate the two parts.

In the , the Somali Youth League would win 54.29% of votes versus 26.01% for the nearest party, the Hizbia Digil Mirifle Somali.The SYL would also earn 416 of the 663 seats in the 1958 municipal election, with the HDMS securing 175 seats.By the , SYL would capture an even greater share of votes by winning 75.58% of the total ballot.

 was an official language in Italian Somaliland during the Fiduciary Mandate, as well as in the first years of independence. By 1952, the majority of Somalis had some understanding of the language.In 1954, the Italian government established post-secondary institutions of law, economics and social studies in Mogadishu, the territory's capital. These institutions were satellites of the , which provided all the instruction material, faculty and administration.
*


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

Saishin said:


> Italy is a peaceful country,it always had good relations with every other countries (like Sweden) why we should attack a nation that has done nothing against us?
> 
> That being said PM Gentiloni released a statement basically saying that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and that after the airstrikes of the Justice League in specific areas he hopes for a diplomatic solution.Also he said that no US jets took off from US bases in Italy.
> 
> ...



Of the many flaws Italy has, disastrous foreign policy like the US or British Empire is not one of them. Italy has always been a country that was too busy sorting its internal issues to bother expanding, and frankly it really never needed to historically, has it's been in different times in history the centre of art, science, literature, commerce et al. Things like the Renaissance movement didn't start in Italy for no reason.

It's for that precise non-expansionist nature, rich history, and self-sufficiency, that when it felt that other European countries took over by having colonies, a populist like Mussolini could capitalise on the long-standing resentment of the common folk and drive the nationalistic pride to the extreme. Not so informed on the German Nazi movement, but I think the "they have colonies and we don't sentiment" was also a strong part of the heavy militarisation and focus on national affairs and prosperity, just like in Mussolini's Italy. 

tl; dr: Italy never needed to expand, it was doing exceptionally well before globalisation hit it like a truck. Aaaand that's all I have to say for the day.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

EJ said:


> "u-uh, m-my eyes! i-i can't read your p-post! s-somehow, i just can't bring myself to address your argument!"
> 
> its comical how you'll continuously sidestep my argument here tho, since it's obvious it tears your rhetoric apart. ahh, it's no surprise watching you turn towards race-baiting because you're getting based. i wonder, what's your end goal in this current argument? attempting to save face?



 I concede to the superiority of your arguments.


----------



## Saishin (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> Of the many flaws Italy has, disastrous foreign policy like the US or British Empire is not one of them. Italy has always been a country that was too busy sorting its internal issues to bother expanding, and frankly it really never needed to historically, has it's been in different times in history the centre of art, science, literature, commerce et al. Things like the Renaissance movement didn't start in Italy for no reason.
> 
> It's for that precise non-expansionist nature, rich history, and self-sufficiency, that when it felt that other European countries took over by having colonies, a populist like Mussolini could capitalise on the long-standing resentment of the common folk and drive the nationalistic pride to the extreme. Not so informed on the German Nazi movement, but I think the "they have colonies and we don't sentiment" was also a strong part of the heavy militarisation and focus on national affairs and prosperity, just like in Mussolini's Italy.
> 
> tl; dr: Italy never needed to expand, it was doing exceptionally well before globalisation hit it like a truck. Aaaand that's all I have to say for the day.


I agree to every single words of your post 

My goodness UK 


Then show these proof clown!


Another clown

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## Lind (Apr 14, 2018)

Well, it would be shocking if none of the missiles fired hit their targets, then again each country doesn't want to lose their credibility and still appear as a power house. You're obviously going to hear contrary arguments from both, the aggressors and defenders here. 

Although the main objective of this strike was not about making a lasting impact. It was a message to Assad to not use chemical weapons against innocent civilians. Their aim isn't to get involved with the civil war the country is currently engulfed in, they want to take out ISIS. 
But then again each country only cares about the facade they want to portray, so the true objective won't be clear.

But we can be sure that the Russian and Syrian defense system did try to defend their bases but the numbers can't be accurate, media outlets coupled with the influence political leaders have on them can't be trusted anymore. 

Either way, fearing for WW3 is redundant, that's not going to happen. I believe each country's leader is well versed in the tragic consequences a WW3 would encompass. No way are any of the countries going to go to war. 

Hopefully this message gets to Assad and impedes his chemical weapon usage.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 14, 2018)

hcheng02 said:


> I have to laugh at the people who honestly thought that Trump would be a peacenik's choice compared that Warmongering Crooked Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we've got a warmonger only without the benefit of foreign policy expertise, emotional stability, and the ability to listen to good counsel.



I never got why people thought Trump was going to be a peacenick,  he was having hawkish retoric up and down his campaigning from day 1.


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> Not so informed on the German Nazi movement, but I think the "they have colonies and we don't sentiment" was also a strong part of the heavy militarisation and focus on national affairs and prosperity, just like in Mussolini's Italy.



This is true for all the Axis powers.

As we said, modern Italy came about in 1861, modern Japan in 1868, and modern Germany in 1871. That means they were all late to the imperialism game and came in when most of the "good" colonies were already taken.

That means their desire to expand inevitably brought them into conflict with the established empires because they could only expand at the (perceived) expense of the incumbents, since the whole Earth had already been explored and there weren't any unoccupied white sports on the map left to claim.

But despite their young age the Axis showed astonishing rates of economic, military and cultural growth. Germany quickly became the science capital of the world and swept a lot of the early Nobel Prize awards (est. 1901). Therefore the incumbents recognized that the Axis not only had the desire for better overseas territories but also the* ability* to actually claim them, and I think this desire to contain the upstarts "before it was too late" was a big part of the cause for the two World Wars.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I concede to the superiority of your arguments.



good, next time concede gracefully as opposed to attempting to find a manner to save-face.


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> But they did colonize Libya specifically, which makes it ironic that an Italian would criticize others for "wrecking" that particular country.
> 
> More broadly Italy arrived late to the imperialism game because the country wasn't unified until 1861. But I would consider Italy's soft power to have been* immense* during the Renaissance, and from 1522 I would actually count the Papal States centered on Rome as a predecessor state to modern Italy, because from that year until 1978 all Popes were ethnic Italians. I think it must have been the Reformation that scared them into ceasing to appoint "foreign" cardinals to the papacy.
> 
> The 456-year monopoly on the papacy obviously gave "Italy" immense indirect control over the Catholic empires Portugal, Spain, and France. For example the Holy Father could be called on to arbitrate border disputes between the three in their overseas possessions, as in the .



get off my co-national's dick immediately 

The point is, Italy, relative to Britain or other European countries, is blemishless as far as disastrous foreign policy is concerned. Libya was Italy's attempt at colonisation but overall it wasn't that bad. I think Somalia and Eritrea were also colonies, but not too sure on that. And lastly, there are different kinds of colonisation and not all brands are a negative. There's French-style colonisation, British, Spanish etc. But I guess that's a topic for another day.


----------



## Saishin (Apr 14, 2018)

It's all a bluff they hit bases that were emptied already by Assad and the Russians since they have been warned prior the attack to avoid russian casualties.The airstrike was just a show so now on TV the Justice League can claim to have restore peace and democracy lol

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Raiden (Apr 14, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## EJ (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> ok , but only the grounds that you learn to type in English and not Ebonics, so I can actually read what you say instead of just skipping it.
> 
> Deal?



"i c-can't u-understand your post!", how easy this was to call out this bullshit. just admit to your cowardice.

 you have an easier time understanding what i'm stating while i keep the same style of posting towards you now tho. coincidentally when it has nothing to do with you beating the war-drum towards Russia, or calling for extreme measures to be taken towards syria while arguing you care about civilian casualties within a nation, and the consequences (refugees migrating towards other Western nations as a result).

  it's funny how you don't sidestep my rhetoric when it's not focusing towards the blatant inconsistencies of your argument. i await your next side-step towards "ebonics" being the reason you're unable to address my post.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I really do not wish for such a disastrous outcome, but if the West has to strike I suggest we do it swiftly and *close the curtains on the country known as Russia*. Innocent and oblivious Russians will have to pay for the sins of their "beloved" President, but I don't see how else to put this paper tiger to sleep.
> 
> This situation kind of reminds me of the Watchmen movie, where Ozymandias takes it upon himself to avert nuclear warfare by blaming Dr. Manhattan and in turn, ultimately saving planet Earth, at the cost of a few American metropolitan cities (deaths in the millions to save billions globally), but gaining the support of the world's politicians. I see something similar here, with the price to pay for global peace being the Russians, as I don't see the Putin man going down without a fight - the man is just too conceited and will drag his country down with him.





Zenith said:


> Going back to why I used the Watchmen example, Putin has been posturing and grandstanding for too long, and if in his hubris drags the entire country to war with him, then *I don't want mankind to reach extinction and would rather close the curtains on Russia alone, at the expense of innocent and oblivious Russians (kill millions in order to save billions worldwide).*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you arguing in favor of wiping out Russians?



Nemesis said:


> I never got why people thought Trump was going to be a peacenick,  he was having hawkish retoric up and down his campaigning from day 1.



“We have to take out their families.”

“I would use torture even it it doesn’t work.”


----------



## Chie (Apr 14, 2018)

So nobody questions why Assad would gas civilians, risking another NATO intervention, when he's winning the war? It doesn't take a genius to figure that this doesn't make any fucking sense.

Also, since when was the ideologies associated with the Left about instigating war. What will happen in Syria if Assad is overthrown is the same thing that happened in Libya. It will become uninhabitable, millions will die and tens of millions will flee to Europe.

I definitely have my reservations on Trump's recent change of mind. In fact, getting our troops out of Syria was one of the main reasons I voted for him.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 14, 2018)

Blue said:


> Well, I didn't vote for the big orange retard in 2016.
> 
> But President Trump earned my vote in 2020.



Seriously Blue? Trump might be in the pocket of the Kremlin and once literally leaked top secret intel to the Russians in the goddamn White House but a few missiles in Syria - which will neither stop the war or overthrow Assad and that's enough to get your vote? What the hell?


----------



## Raiden (Apr 14, 2018)

^Don't be too surprised. Trump is performing better with independents and Repubs. It's harder than it looks to unseat him in 2020. I think what mystifies me is why he is bothering to try for another term..


----------



## Island (Apr 14, 2018)

Chie said:


> It will become uninhabitable, millions will die and tens of millions will flee to Europe.


Syria only has 18 million people...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith has lost his mind. Advocating for genocide is what we are doing now?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Chie (Apr 14, 2018)

Island said:


> Syria only has 18 million people...


Who cares? Okay, so millions are going to die and millions are going to flee to Europe. The consequences will still be horrible.

But tell me this. How come you've let yourself (being a Leftist) been manipulated into a warmonger? At what point did you come to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to bomb the country back to the Stone Age?

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## Mr. Good vibes (Apr 14, 2018)

You know things are bad when Chie's making somewhat of a point.



> oh so it's ok for countries to murder their own people or people on their soil. Point taken. I do hope you turn a blind eye when Europe decides to throw their refugees in the sea and feed them to the sharks. Who needs diplomacy and international treaties when sovereign nations can violate human rights? Wow, never knew it was that easy.


Well this tells me your not clued in on how this situation is actually playing out. Assad who is on the cups of victory winning the civil war there and regaining almost all the territory back in the country is going to again "gas" his people knowing full and well that the U.S. is going to respond is something you expect me to believe 100% when Mattis not to long ago came out and said we have no proof if the Syrian gov was the one who was responsible for the last gas attack not to mention that we automatically decided that yep it was Assad again gassing his people just cause he just that evil and stupid. Of course this is not getting into the fact that a majority of the rebels we've been supporting against the regime are inspired by ISS and similar ideology. As for the violating human rights piece one only needs to take a look at the shit going down in Yemen and how war crimes are being violated by the Saudis with our support of course to see how much we truly care about  innocent civilians getting killed.


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Apr 14, 2018)

Whelp this was an interesting read


----------



## Island (Apr 14, 2018)

Chie said:


> But tell me this. How come you've let yourself (being a Leftist) been manipulated into a warmonger? At what point did you come to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to bomb the country back to the Stone Age?


Who said I supported the airstrikes?


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

Normality said:


> Zenith has lost his mind. Advocating for genocide is what we are doing now?



ahahah sometimes I do wonder why I still post on this forum, perhaps I'm a masochist? Perhaps I've outgrown the demographic? I think it's the latter. It's like you antagonise and misconstrue arguments on purpose to have an excuse to smear them.

In any case for those concerned with the developments here's some more data from the FT (emphasis mine):



> What were the targets?
> 
> The US said allies targeted fundamental components of Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure.
> 
> Aerial images of the sites published by the Pentagon showed the first target was a scientific research centre located at Barzeh in the greater Damascus area, which the US said was used for the development, productions and testing of chemical and biological weapons. The second was a chemical weapons storage facility at Him Shinshar west of the city of Homs which the US said was the primary location for the Syrian manufacture of the nerve agent sarin. The third was a chemical weapons bunker facility close to the second target.





> How did the US and its allies strike?
> 
> Lt General Kenneth McKenzie, director of the US joint staff, said 105 missiles were fired from US, French and British naval and air platforms in the Red Sea, northern Gulf and the Mediterranean. The attack took place at 4am local time. Two US warships, a submarine and two B-1 bombers all fired missiles. The bombers, which fired joint air-to surface stand-off missiles, were accompanied by fighter jets and electronic jammers. The US fired 56 Tomahawk missiles and 19 joint air-to-surface missiles at the first target. All three allies attacked the chemical weapons storage facility with a total of 22 weapons, with US Tomahawks, British Storm Shadow and French missiles. The US used seven scout missiles against the chemical weapons bunker. The UK said it fired Storm Shadow missiles from its four Tornados which flew from the RAF’s air base at Akrotiri, Cyprus. The Storm Shadow has a range of about 500km, meaning the jets would have been able to remain beyond the range of Syrian and Russian air defences.





> How successful were the attacks?
> 
> The US described the strikes as “precise, overwhelming, and effective”, saying initial reports showed the operation accomplished objectives but was still subject to detailed damage assessment. Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, director of the Joint Staff, said the allies attacked targets in such a manner as to “minimise” the effects of spreading chemical or nerve agents that the US assessed were at the target. “Initial assessments are that this target was destroyed,” said Lt Gen McKenzie of the first target. “*This will set the Syrian chemical weapons programme back for years.*” He said the third target was “successfully hit” but did not say it was destroyed. “*There is some left, but we have dealt a severe blow.*”
> 
> The Russian defence ministry claimed 71 of the 103 missiles fired were shot down by Syrian air defence systems, a claim denied by the US. Military analysts said this was unlikely given the “obsolescent” state of Syria’s air defence equipment and the fact the more sophisticated Russian S400 systems, stationed at its air base in Latakia province were not deployed. “*To the best of our knowledge, no Syria weapon had any effect on anything we did*,” said Lt Gen McKenzie, adding* the attacks had overwhelmed Syrian air defences, that no aircraft or missiles were successfully engaged* and that the US was confident all missiles reached their targets.  He said the US did not warn Russia before the strikes but that it did communicate through the “deconfliction” line to prevent any clashes in airspace. He said t*he US had “no indication” that Russian air defence system weapons were employed* — although he did not say they had not been turned on.  Doug Barrie, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that while it was possible some of the Tomahawks will have been shot down or failed, the “*chances of the Syrian defences taking them all out are very slim*”. [...]



Highly unlikely that the Syrian forces managed to take down that many missiles by solo effort, as the US general heavily implies. And with what technology would they have managed to do that, when Russian forces apparently did not intervene? Someone's clearly lying here. Either the joint forces are lying about the number of missiles and the effectiveness of the strike, or Assad/Putin/Iran are trying their hardest to suppress the information.

Images cannot be copied from the article, but it definitely shows the sites on the Syrian map and the aftermath of the bombings, so going by the evidence the US side has more going for them, I'm just a bit sceptical about the fact that so many missiles caused such a contained damage.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Drake (Apr 14, 2018)

To all the people claiming that Assad didn't gas his own people because it would make no sense, you're missing a few essential things. First of all, you're assuming that Assad, a dictator who started this whole thing because his people rebelled against him, is perfectly sane and that he isn't vindictive at all. Second, though chemical weapons don't have much of an advantage over traditional bombs, the reason why one may choose to use them instead of regular bombs is to instill a fear factor. Gassing people with chemicals and having them suffer in that way leaves a greater psychological impact on the populace than regular bombings do, and if Assad's ultimate goal is to subdue the rebels and bring the population back under his control, then that's probably why he uses chemical weapons. Third, though Assad does risk US or NATO intervention if he uses chemical weapons, the response from the international community the last time he used chemical weapons was very tepid, so it wasn't that much of a risk to use them again, and it's very possible he only wanted to test to see what the US would do. Of course, the alternative explanation to all this is that there is some sort of conspiracy going down between US/UK/France to take down Russia or Assad or whatever, which makes no sense because Trump himself has expressed that he wants to get out of Syria and that he wants to be friendly with Russia. The only reason why he didn't start pulling out yet was because of the chemical attack, so I don't see how it makes sense that the US said they want to leave Syria and then manufactured a made-up reason to stay in Syria...  

Ultimately the reason why Trump had to bomb Syria again was because he drew a line in the sand by bombing Syria the first time they used chemical weapons. Taking no action the second time would be an acknowledgement of the fact that the USA's initial response to the first chemical attack was completely useless.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 14, 2018)

hcheng02 said:


> Seriously Blue? Trump might be in the pocket of the Kremlin and once literally leaked top secret intel to the Russians in the goddamn White House but a few missiles in Syria - which will neither stop the war or overthrow Assad and that's enough to get your vote? What the hell?


I mean even if trump did nothing wrong the FBI keeps raiding and arresting his inner circle. He surrounds himself with alot criminals for an innocent man

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Lurko (Apr 14, 2018)

Trump don't play, when he has his mind set it's on. Hope my friends don't get involved in this.


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2018)

*The United Nations Security Council failed to adopted a Russian-drafted resolution on Saturday that would have condemned "the aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic by the U.S. and its allies in violation of international law and the U.N. Charter."*

Only Russia, China and Bolivia voted in favor of the draft resolution. Eight countries voted against the draft, while four abstained. A resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by Russia, China, France, Britain or the United States to pass. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...opt-russian-resolution-on-syria-idUSKBN1HL162


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Drake said:


> To all the people claiming that Assad didn't gas his own people because it would make no sense, you're missing a few essential things. First of all, you're assuming that Assad, a dictator who started this whole thing because his people rebelled against him, is perfectly sane and that he isn't vindictive at all. Second, though chemical weapons don't have much of an advantage over traditional bombs, the reason why one may choose to use them instead of regular bombs is to instill a fear factor. Gassing people with chemicals and having them suffer in that way leaves a greater psychological impact on the populace than regular bombings do, and if Assad's ultimate goal is to subdue the rebels and bring the population back under his control, then that's probably why he uses chemical weapons. Third, though Assad does risk US or NATO intervention if he uses chemical weapons, the response from the international community the last time he used chemical weapons was very tepid, so it wasn't that much of a risk to use them again, and it's very possible he only wanted to test to see what the US would do. Of course, the alternative explanation to all this is that there is some sort of conspiracy going down between US/UK/France to take down Russia or Assad or whatever, which makes no sense because Trump himself has expressed that he wants to get out of Syria and that he wants to be friendly with Russia. The only reason why he didn't start pulling out yet was because of the chemical attack, so I don't see how it makes sense that the US said they want to leave Syria and then manufactured a made-up reason to stay in Syria...
> 
> Ultimately the reason why Trump had to bomb Syria again was because he drew a line in the sand by bombing Syria the first time they used chemical weapons. Taking no action the second time would be an acknowledgement of the fact that the USA's initial response to the first chemical attack was completely useless.



It makes no sense for Assad to gas his own people because he has little incentive to do it. Why would he need to put fear into people when they would respond better to security, particularly the security of knowing that terrorists have been wiped out? Also, the prospect of Assad putting fear into his own citizens would naturally be eclipsed by his own fear of international intervention. He has more to lose but the so-called rebels would have more to gain by using gas. They know that Assad will be blamed after each attack and with each strike, jihadists have a new breath of life within Syria.

It would make more sense if he was accused of gasing known terrorists, but that is never alleged. I wonder why.

Besides, even if Assad gassed his people, how much good will it do for other nations to bomb Syria to the stone age? In one scenario, a leader is harming his own people. In the other, foreign nations will be the ones harming the same people, because civilian casualties in a sustained bombing campaign are inevitable.

And before you call me an Assad apologist, I well aware of how the war started. He ordered authorities to shoot protesters and before that, he kept political prisoners and cracked down on social media. I also know that Hezbollah is part of the pro-Syrian coalition. This issue isn’t black and white.

Reactions: Sad! 2


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> The fact that you're using Farage in a serious way just shows how out of touch you are. The man you're quoting is the same that manipulated the gullible British voters into committing a national act of self-harm that became known as Brexit, purely for his political gain. Next day after the Brexit referendum, Farage was nowhere to be found when it came to advising or executing the transition and divorce from the EU.
> 
> He's a salamander!



As much as I would like to debate brexit, that's not the point  everything has a 'reason',

Reactions: Informative 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)

Zenith said:


> Of course they won't do jack as usual, they'll get vaporised after all!
> 
> If Putin wants Russia to be recognised on the international stage, the best he could do for his country is to fade in the background for a solid 150-200 years, and implement proper economic reform, and have the country come back as a realistic and fearsome opponent, instead of the paper tiger it currently is. He should learn from China.



It doesn't need to fade into background, it is already a passive opponent. While US likes to brag how much they hurt Russia with their sanctions, this is simply not true, it just improves it greatly, specially when it comes to food import, thus why many latin america countries show interest to deal with them and NATO hates it. 

I mean its common sense that this is all happening when the US is currently over $20 trillon in debt, try to see it from a different angle.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Drake (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> It makes no sense for Assad to gas his own people because he has little incentive to do it. Why would he need to put fear into people when they would respond better to security, particularly the security of knowing that terrorists have been wiped out?



People rebelled initially against Assad, not the terrorists. Wiping out the terrorists won't change the fact that people still don't want Assad as a dictator. Also, what you're asking here is essentially, "Why can't this dictator stop oppressing his people and just be a good guy?"



> Also, the prospect of Assad putting fear into his own citizens would naturally be eclipsed by his own fear of international intervention.



Already countered this:



			
				Drake said:
			
		

> Third, though Assad does risk US or NATO intervention if he uses chemical weapons, the response from the international community the last time he used chemical weapons was very tepid, so it wasn't that much of a risk to use them again, and it's very possible he only wanted to test to see what the US would do.






> He has more to lose but the so-called rebels would have more to gain by using gas. They know that Assad will be blamed after each attack and with each strike, jihadists have a new breath of life within Syria.



Not really. ISIS and the rebels not backed by the US are losing the war, as even people who think Assad didn't use chemical weapons acknowledge. Whether the US launches a missile strike on Syria or not is not going to save the rebels from destruction. There's also the fact that the rebels can't gas people in their own territories and expect to keep the support of the people there. Just look at Iraq for example: the terrorist forces in places like Fallujah were only able to hold out for as long as they did because they had the support of the local population. The recent attacks in Niger and other places are also examples of this.



> It would make more sense if he was accused of gasing known terrorists, but that is never alleged. I wonder why.



It's alleged that he gassed rebel-held areas.



> Besides, even if Assad gassed his people, how much good will it do for other nations to bomb Syria to the stone age? In one scenario, a leader is harming his own people. In the other, foreign nations will be the ones harming the same people, because civilian casualties in a sustained bombing campaign are inevitable.



Nobody is bombing Syria to the stone age, as evidenced by the recent strikes and the first strikes as well. But if you're asking what the reasoning behind the idea of punishing Assad is, then it is because Assad's use of chemical weapons violates international treaties and puts pressure on countries like the US to do something. If the US stands by and watches, people both in and out of America are going to complain about how the US was just as bad as Assad because they could have stopped him but didn't. There's also this that I mentioned earlier:



			
				Drake said:
			
		

> Ultimately the reason why Trump had to bomb Syria again was because he drew a line in the sand by bombing Syria the first time they used chemical weapons. Taking no action the second time would be an acknowledgement of the fact that the USA's initial response to the first chemical attack was completely useless.



And America's main goal here is to punish Assad for defying them, not to save civilian lives (though that may be what ends up occurring in the long run). And I'm not sure what your argument even is here... It sounds to me like you're saying that it's better to let a leader gas his own people than let foreigners bomb them.



> And before you call me an Assad apologist, I well aware of how the war started. He ordered authorities to shoot protesters and before that, he kept political prisoners and cracked down on social media. I also know that Hezbollah is part of the pro-Syrian coalition. This issue isn’t black and white.



I wasn't planning on calling you an Assad apologist, but okay.


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Drake said:


> People rebelled initially against Assad, not the terrorists. Wiping out the terrorists won't change the fact that people still don't want Assad as a dictator. Also, what you're asking here is essentially, "Why can't this dictator stop oppressing his people and just be a good guy?"



People who have visited Syria and spoke to the people there tell a different story. Yes, there are Syrians who mistrust Assad but if given the choice, they prefer him over the opposition. Also, there was an election in 2014 and he received overwhelming support. That election was discounted by the foreign press, but even now, there are people in Syria who prefer Assad.



Drake said:


> Already countered this:
> 
> 
> 
> > Third, though Assad does risk US or NATO intervention if he uses chemical weapons, the response from the international community the last time he used chemical weapons was very tepid, so it wasn't that much of a risk to use them again, and it's very possible he only wanted to test to see what the US would do.



That doesn’t really counter what I’ve said. It’d just be exceedingly stupid. Shouldn’t Assad’s main focus be stabilizing his own country? Again, why risk intervention but trying to test foreign powers? That doesn’t make any sense.



Drake said:


> Not really. ISIS and the rebels not backed by the US are losing the war, as even people who think Assad didn't use chemical weapons acknowledge. Whether the US launches a missile strike on Syria or not is not going to save the rebels from destruction. There's also the fact that the rebels can't gas people in their own territories and expect to keep the support of the people there. Just look at Iraq for example: the terrorist forces in places like Fallujah were only able to hold out for as long as they did because they had the support of the local population. The recent attacks in Niger and other places are also examples of this.



Jihadists would want to use a gas attack because it would buy them time. They have no qualms about killing people, especially people who won’t submit to them.

Why is the United States in Niger?



Drake said:


> It's alleged that he gassed rebel-held areas.



Couldn’t it also be possible that the rebels gassed those areas themselves?



Drake said:


> Nobody is bombing Syria to the stone age, as evidenced by the recent strikes and the first strikes as well. But if you're asking what the reasoning behind the idea of punishing Assad is, then it is because Assad's use of chemical weapons violates international treaties and puts pressure on countries like the US to do something. If the US stands by and watches, people both in and out of America are going to complain about how the US was just as bad as Assad because they could have stopped him but didn't. There's also this that I mentioned earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I understand that Trump’s position is a one of posturing, because it sure isn’t about humanitarianism. He has no problem bombing the shit out of black and brown people. He increase U.S. drone strikes by 432% early on in his administration and he has been carpet-bombing places like Yemen.

Where Syria is concerned, Trump in between a rock and a hard place. For one thing, he promised to leave Syria to the people in the area and to work with Russia. He definitely doesn’t want to piss off Russia, but there are forces in the United States pushing him to do something militarily in Syria.



Drake said:


> *And America's main goal here is to punish Assad for defying them, not to save civilian lives (though that may be what ends up occurring in the long run).* And I'm not sure what your argument even is here... It sounds to me like you're saying that it's better to let a leader gas his own people than let foreigners bomb them.



If it’s not about saving civilian lives, that destroys the whole moral argument.

Do you want to know what my argument is? It starts with position of non-intervention. The United States is already involved in Syria, but if it increases its involvement, this could be another Iraq War. It would also be a war of aggression on the U.S.’s part.



Drake said:


> I wasn't planning on calling you an Assad apologist, but okay.



That’s good to know, but people in the Café often put words in each other’s mouths.[/QUOTE]

Reactions: Agree 1 | Winner 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 14, 2018)

Seems like the strike didnt hit anything of note

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ashi (Apr 14, 2018)

makeoutparadise said:


> Seems like the strike didnt hit anything of note



That's good and all but imo we shouldn't have struck in the first place


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> Couldn’t it also be possible that the rebels gassed those areas themselves?



How exactly could the rebels, surrounded and besieged by the regime for years, have managed to develop and deploy nerve gas?

Also iirc, the rebels gave up shortly afterwards and were evacuated from Douma like a day or two after the chemical attack. How does that square with the idea of suicidal diehard terrorists willing to gas their own civilian population? So we are led to believe that they planned an elaborate hoax only to shrug and say "fuck it" and just....leave?


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Jin-E said:


> How exactly could the rebels, surrounded and besieged by the regime for years, have managed to develop and deploy nerve gas?
> 
> *Also iirc, the rebels gave up shortly afterwards and were evacuated from Douma like a day or two after the chemical attack.* How does that square with the idea of suicidal diehard terrorists willing to gas their own civilian population? So we are led to believe that they planned an elaborate hoax only to shrug and say "fuck it" and just....leave?



Can you give me a link to a story that says that?


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> Can you give me a link to a story that says that?



Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...m-douma-reach-northwest-monitor-idUSKBN1HH19M


----------



## Zenith (Apr 14, 2018)

Onewhosbeenaround said:


> Well this tells me your not clued in on how this situation is actually playing out. Assad who is on the cups of victory winning the civil war there and regaining almost all the territory back in the country is going to again "gas" his people knowing full and well that the U.S. is going to respond is something you expect me to believe 100% when Mattis not to long ago came out and said we have no proof if the Syrian gov was the one who was responsible for the last gas attack not to mention that we automatically decided that yep it was Assad again gassing his people just cause he just that evil and stupid. Of course this is not getting into the fact that a majority of the rebels we've been supporting against the regime are inspired by ISS and similar ideology. As for the violating human rights piece one only needs to take a look at the shit going down in Yemen and how war crimes are being violated by the Saudis with our support of course to see how much we truly care about  innocent civilians getting killed.



Perhaps you missed the part of the story were Assad is a dictator? Dictators don't rise to power through legitimate means, and don't stay in power because of them either.



CrazyAries said:


> Are you arguing in favor of wiping out Russians



No.



Ignition said:


> As much as I would like to debate brexit, that's not the point  everything has a 'reason',



Yeah I understand that, believe me, but I just used Brexit as example of why Farage is not in the position to talk about anything, he's just an instigator, a con man.


Well, I do see the point of being wary of the US global military presence, you also have to understand that many countries wilfully decide to do business with the US, and also are content with the arrangement. Besides, for the sake of peace, you always need a strong leader, as a non-negligible chunk of countries in our world understand only the rule of violence. The conflict between the different strains of Islam, Sunni and Shia for example, has been going for longer than the US became a country, so it's not fair to entirely blame the US and the West by extension for the clusterfuck that is the Middle-east.



Ignition said:


> It doesn't need to fade into background, it is already a passive opponent. While US likes to brag how much they hurt Russia with their sanctions, this is simply not true, it just improves it greatly, specially when it comes to food import, thus why many latin america countries show interest to deal with them and NATO hates it.
> 
> I mean its common sense that this is all happening when the US is currently over $20 trillon in debt, try to see it from a different angle.



*trillion

Common sense? Sergei from Vladivostok's troll farm? That you?

The US - and global - economy is performing well. In fact, the economy is doing so well, that investors are preemptively panicking and wondering when the markets will stabilise, as assets like equities have been "too good to be true" in recent times.

I don't like to mock people as to avoid dissuading them from talking about political issues (the youth needs to get more political in fact), but what you said about the strength of the Russian economy is criminally wrong.

Best thing for Russia is to just quietly power up like China did. As much as I don't like China, the government's country-building prowess and vision are remarkable from a purely economical standpoint of course.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> Also, there was an election in 2014 and he received overwhelming support.



lol

Reactions: Agree 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Jin-E said:


> Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...m-douma-reach-northwest-monitor-idUSKBN1HH19M



Thank you.

I still have questions. For starters, we have seen footage from after the suspected attack occurred. I have seen videos of children who were being treated with gas masks, others being treated with water, and those of people were announced dead. However, are those who are being treated being properly treated?

From what I’ve read, Sarin gas (and this suspected attack may have contained a mixture of sarin and chlorine gas), those who have been exposed to sarin must remove their close as quickly as possible and wash themselves with soap in water. The people in the videos are just being treated with water.

Also, what are the names of the rebel groups? Are all those who were evacuated part of the same rebel group?

Additionally, why would some of the civilians go into government-held territory?

Now, let’s say that Assad did call for a chemical attack. (Honestly, although he had a deal with the U.S. to get rid of all of his chemical weapons a few years ago, I don’t trust that he got rid of all his chemical weapons.) Wouldn’t that be extremely dumb on his part? He was already winning so there was no need for Assad to do this.

*If there was a full investigation that proved that Assad called for all those gas attacks, what should be done with him? And he’s going to be replaced, who’s going to replace him and who will be responsible for making sure there is stability in Syria?*

My concerns go beyond the gas attacks and who is responsible.



Nighty the Mighty said:


> lol



That's all you have to say? K.


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> People who have visited Syria and spoke to the people there tell a different story. Yes, there are Syrians who mistrust Assad but if given the choice, they prefer him over the opposition. Also, there was an election in 2014 and he received overwhelming support.



*The choice in Syria's election: vote for Assad or else …*

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/syria-election-vote-for-assad-or-else

*Syria holds presidential election widely condemned as rigged*


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> That's all you have to say? K.



This is why Mugabe is the rightful president of Zimbabwe of course


----------



## dr_shadow (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> People who have visited Syria and spoke to the people there tell a different story. Yes, there are Syrians who mistrust Assad but if given the choice, they prefer him over the opposition. Also, there was an election in 2014 and he received overwhelming support. That election was discounted by the foreign press, but even now, there are people in Syria who prefer Assad.





Benedict Cumberzatch said:


> *The choice in Syria's election: vote for Assad or else …*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/syria-election-vote-for-assad-or-else
> 
> *Syria holds presidential election widely condemned as rigged*



Meh, he only got 89% of the vote. That's basically stumbling across the finish line.

My man Xi got 100% of the vote in our election last month. That's what overwhelming support looks like.


----------



## 青月光 (Apr 14, 2018)

Trump: Russia's connection scandal. Goes and bombs Syria.

May: Disastrous Brexit process. Goes and bombs Syria.

Macron: Continuous protests at home because of his controversial labor reforms. Goes and bombs Syria.

They're true politicians.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Nighty the Mighty said:


> This is why Mugabe is the rightful president of Zimbabwe of course



Mugabe was eventually removed from power from people within the Zimbabwean government. If Assad is to eventually be removed, it should be done by Syrians themselves. I believe Syrians should have the right to self-determination. Much of the Syrian War has been fueled by outside forces.


----------



## Mr. Good vibes (Apr 14, 2018)

> Perhaps you missed the part of the story were Assad is a dictator? Dictators don't rise to power through legitimate means, and don't stay in power because of them either.


So we agree here that Assad is dictator and dictators arise from non legitimate means however there is a problem that does comes up when it comes to the U.S. in particular ousting a dictator for "humanitarian purposes" and that is the fact that as a country the U.S. financially supports 36 other country's run by a dictator with military assistance or in other words 73% of the worlds dictators have U.S. backing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Breadman (Apr 14, 2018)

So I take a break from reading the news for a few days due to finals, and when I come back, there are arguments over whether Assad gassed his own citizens, and apparently the US fired a missile at Syria.



What the flying hell is going on?


----------



## Magic (Apr 14, 2018)

Onewhosbeenaround said:


> So we agree here that Assad is dictator and dictators arise from non legitimate means however there is a problem that does comes up when it comes to the U.S. in particular ousting a dictator for "humanitarian purposes" and that is the fact that as a country the U.S. financially supports 36 other country's run by a dictator with military assistance or in other words 73% of the worlds dictators have U.S. backing.


[citation needed]


----------



## Magic (Apr 14, 2018)

I don't get CrazyAries.


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

RemChu said:


> I don't get CrazyAries.



What don't you get and where do _you _stand on the issue? Ranking posts and doing nothing to present an actual argument or giving me non sequitors is weak. 

I want for there to be a full and open investigation. If Assad is found to be guilty of gassing his own civilians, _they _should remove him after the smoke is cleared. But there needs to be an end to this war. 

Again, Syrians themselves should have the right to self-determination. I do not support intervention because it is costly (in lives and money) and Western forces will essentially be acting as the air force of the terrorists that are still there. How hard is that to understand?

I don't get how people say that Assad is guilt full stop and refuse to wait for an investigation. I don't like Assad or Putin for that matter, but much of this discussion is really a push for intervention.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> Mugabe was eventually removed from power from people within the Zimbabwean government. If Assad is to eventually be removed, it should be done by Syrians themselves. I believe Syrians should have the right to self-determination. Much of the Syrian War has been fueled by outside forces.



mugabe was couped by the military because his disastrous running of the country was too much for them to bear

in what way is this remotely self-determined by the people of his country?


----------



## Magic (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> What don't you get and where do _you _stand on the issue? Ranking posts and doing nothing to present an actual argument or giving me non sequitors is weak.
> 
> I want for there to be a full and open investigation. If Assad is found to be guilty of gassing his own civilians, _they _should remove him after the smoke is cleared. But there needs to be an end to this war.
> 
> ...



You assume the Syrians have any political power to choose their leader here...?
Like your stance and questions are like having your cake and eating it too kind of sentiment.

Just like odd.


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Nighty the Mighty said:


> mugabe was couped by the military because his disastrous running of the country was too much for them to bear
> 
> in what way is this remotely self-determined by the people of his country?



It was his own military and not an outside one. It's closer to self-determination that outright intervention is.

Where are you getting at where Assad is concerned?


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

RemChu said:


> You assume the Syrians have any political power to choose their leader here...?



And the West should?


----------



## Drake (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> People who have visited Syria and spoke to the people there tell a different story. Yes, there are Syrians who mistrust Assad but if given the choice, they prefer him over the opposition. Also, there was an election in 2014 and he received overwhelming support. That election was discounted by the foreign press, but even now, there are people in Syria who prefer Assad.



I'm sure there are people who support Assad in Syria, but none of that counters the fact that there were protests against Assad and that there are quite literally rebels in armed conflict against him, so let's not try and act like he's this popular guy who is being challenged by a fringe group of extremists. I also wouldn't be so quick to trust Syrian election results when Assad is a dictator.



> That doesn’t really counter what I’ve said. It’d just be exceedingly stupid. Shouldn’t Assad’s main focus be stabilizing his own country? Again, why risk intervention but trying to test foreign powers? That doesn’t make any sense.



Uh... Yes, it does directly counter what you said. You tried to claim that Assad would be dumb to risk NATO intervention, and I explained why no, it's not actually as crazy as it sounds. As for why he would risk intervention to test foreign powers, I already explained why in my other post, but I'll repeat it again here. In the past, USA's response to Syrian chemical attacks have been very meek. Obama didn't do anything, and Trump launched a few missiles at some random base in Syria. Therefore, USA has made it clear that they will not undertake major action if Assad were to use chemical weapons, so it is perfectly logical for Assad to assume that the next time he uses it, the USA's response will again be minor at best. 



> Jihadists would want to use a gas attack because it would buy them time. They have no qualms about killing people, especially people who won’t submit to them.



You're just repeating what you said earlier even though I already countered this. Again, rebels cannot expect to hold ground if the population is against them - they do not have the same power that a dictator of a country does, so they need that support. I gave you two real world examples to prove my point.



> Why is the United States in Niger?



Anti-terrorism operations, but that's not relevant to the point I made. 



> Couldn’t it also be possible that the rebels gassed those areas themselves?



I mean... Anything is _theoretically_ possible, but the fact that three major world powers are pointing to Assad suggest to me that they're pretty confident that he did it. Like someone else mentioned, it's unlikely that the rebels have the means and resources to carry out chemical attacks, while Assad on the other hand is known to have facilities that manufacture those weapons. USA/France/UK are not going to waste expensive missiles and risk triggering Russia over flimsy evidence. Also, I already explained why it would be disadvantageous for the rebels to gas those areas and why it would be advantageous for Assad to do so. It just wouldn't make much logical sense if the rebels gassed those areas.



> Where Syria is concerned, Trump in between a rock and a hard place. For one thing, he promised to leave Syria to the people in the area and to work with Russia. He definitely doesn’t want to piss off Russia, but there are forces in the United States pushing him to do something militarily in Syria.



That is correct to a degree. Trump himself does not want to attack Syria or Russia, and yet he still did. What does that tell you? There must be a very good reason why a guy who was initially reluctant to attack is now attacking. It's either that Assad gassed his own people, or that there is some sort of military industrial complex conspiracy theory that is manipulating world opinion on the conflict... Which do you think is more likely?



> Do you want to know what my argument is? It starts with position of non-intervention. The United States is already involved in Syria, but if it increases its involvement, this could be another Iraq War. It would also be a war of aggression on the U.S.’s part.
> 
> That’s good to know, but people in the Café often put words in each other’s mouth.



Yeah, that makes sense and is more or less what I thought your argument was to begin with. You don't sound like an Assad apologist to me, but when you try and deny that Assad gassed his own people despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can see why people might call you one. If your position is one of non-intervention, then that is fine, and it is perfectly reasonable to want deescalation in the Middle East. However, if you're going to make that argument, you should probably first accept that Assad gassed his people. You can still be non-interventionist even if you accept that. Basically, you can argue that you don't want the US to be fighting in Syria, but it sounds kind of ridiculous if you argue that you don't want the US in Syria _because _Assad didn't use chemical weapons because the latter part of that argument most likely isn't true.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 14, 2018)

August 21, 2017

Coalition saying every target was hit successfully. No interceptions have been caught on video either, btw. You just see Syrian SAM's go up into the air and in many cases come back down.


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Drake said:


> I'm sure there are people who support Assad in Syria, but none of that counters the fact that there were protests against Assad and that there are quite literally rebels in armed conflict against him, so let's not try and act like he's this popular guy who is being challenged by a fringe group of extremists. I also wouldn't be so quick to trust Syrian election results when Assad is a dictator.



I take a lot of things with a grain of salt, and it's fair to say that we should take those election results with a grain of salt, as well. However, many of the outlets reporting on Syria don't even have people in the country. The truth is, we don't know how strong the support for Assad is and I wish more people would admit it.



Drake said:


> Uh... Yes, it does directly counter what you said. You tried to claim that Assad would be dumb to risk NATO intervention, and I explained why no, it's not actually as crazy as it sounds. As for why he would risk intervention to test foreign powers, I already explained why in my other post, but I'll repeat it again here. In the past, USA's response to Syrian chemical attacks have been very meek. Obama didn't do anything, and Trump launched a few missiles at some random base in Syria. Therefore, USA has made it clear that they will not undertake major action if Assad were to use chemical weapons, so it is perfectly logical for Assad to assume that the next time he uses it, the USA's response will again be minor at best.



I get your point, but that still sounds like a very dumb plan to me. He wouldn't need to do that, especially since he was already winning.



Drake said:


> You're just repeating what you said earlier even though I already countered this. Again, rebels cannot expect to hold ground if the population is against them - they do not have the same power that a dictator of a country does, so they need that support. I gave you two real world examples to prove my point.



I agree that the rebels are at a disadvantage. Hence why Assad is winning.



Drake said:


> Anti-terrorism operations, but that's not relevant to the point I made.



It's relevant to the discussion of the United States' war portfolio. This is also an extention of the AUMF, which has been abused.



Drake said:


> I mean... Anything is _theoretically_ possible, but the fact that three major world powers are pointing to Assad suggest to me that they're pretty confident that he did it. Like someone else mentioned, it's unlikely that the rebels have the means and resources to carry out chemical attacks, while Assad on the other hand is known to have facilities that manufacture those weapons. USA/France/UK are not going to waste expensive missiles and risk triggering Russia over flimsy evidence. Also, I already explained why it would be disadvantageous for the rebels to gas those areas and why it would be advantageous for Assad to do so. It just wouldn't make much logical sense if the rebels gassed those areas.



In 2015, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons concluded that i. This was based on reports of mustard gas in Syria near a rebel-held area and reports from the Peshmerga in Iraq that they have been hit with mortar that contained chemicals by ISIS fighters.

Also, there were reports that fighters had been smuggled financial aid and oil. It's quite possible that the sources supplying them could smuggle in chemicals or the components of chemicals.

This could be determined with a proper investigation and the the U.K, France, and the U.S. acted without one. That's all I'm saying.



Drake said:


> That is correct to a degree. Trump himself does not want to attack Syria or Russia, and yet he still did. What does that tell you? There must be a very good reason why a guy who was initially reluctant to attack is now attacking. It's either that Assad gassed his own people, or that there is some sort of military industrial complex conspiracy theory that is manipulating world opinion on the conflict... Which do you think is more likely?



TBQH, both scenarios are likely. There are a lot of forces pushing for war, especially defense contractors who would benefit from weapons sales. Trump is an investor in Raytheon, which made the missles that were used in last years strikes on a Syrian airbase. It sounds cynical and conspiratorial, but the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Also, Trump just appointed John Bolton as his national security adviser. Have you read some of the things he's said? He's a war hawk.



Drake said:


> Yeah, that makes sense and is more or less what I thought your argument was to begin with. You don't sound like an Assad apologist to me, but when you try and deny that Assad gassed his own people despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can see why people might call you one. If your position is one of non-intervention, then that is fine, and it is perfectly reasonable to want deescalation in the Middle East. However, if you're going to make that argument, you should probably first accept that Assad gassed his people. You can still be non-interventionist even if you accept that. Basically, you can argue that you don't want the US to be fighting in Syria, but it sounds kind of ridiculous if you argue that you don't want the US in Syria _because _Assad didn't use chemical weapons because the latter part of that argument most likely isn't true.



I want people to ask themselves questions and stop jumping to conclusions without proof. I would also like them to stop being intellectually dishonest.

Besides that, this has been a nice exchange.


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Nighty the Mighty said:


> Dude
> 
> you're fucking dumb



I'm not a dude. And you fucking suck at debating people. Suck it.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Mr. Good vibes (Apr 14, 2018)

RemChu said:


> [citation needed]







Of course the U.S. has never been a stranger when it comes to propping up and supporting dictators when there is a incentive most infamous of which being Iran back in the 50's in which Britan managed to convince the Eisenhower administration to help them overthrow the prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh who wanted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran which of course is a big no which led to the puppet Shah taking over doing the bidding of the west and well the rest is history.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Nighty the Mighty said:


> what even is this post
> 
> you're literally sitting here saying that an internal military coup is self-determinism
> 
> you're braindead



What is your point? You're pulling shit out of your ass and then trying to put it in my mouth.

To me, self-determination might require a popular uprising, but it lieu of one, a military coup is more likely to happen. Of course, I don't like the latter, but I do not advocate for unlateral interventions, either. It would be one thing if the people called for foreign help, but it's quite another when they don't.

Comprende?

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> What is your point? You're pulling shit out of your ass and then trying to put it in my mouth.
> 
> To me, self-determination might require a popular uprising, but it lieu of one, a military coup is more likely to happen. Of course, I don't like the latter, but I do not advocate for unlateral interventions, either. It would be one thing if the people called for foreign help, but it's quite another when they don't.
> 
> Comprende?



I think your posts ITT speak for themselves.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad! 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)

Russia destroyed 71 US smart missiles with 40 years old soviet ones, good job America


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 14, 2018)

Nighty the Mighty said:


> I think your posts ITT speak for themselves.



You're pathetic. You are being intellectually dishonest and there is a lot you are not saying. You just don't have the balls to say it.

Once again, my ultimate position is against unilateral interventions. That's regardless of whether or not Assad gassed his own people. If he did, he's dumb and evil and he should be replaced. However, I question what role the United States should play in it. How is that hard to understand?


----------



## Ignition (Apr 14, 2018)




----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Apr 14, 2018)

> People thinking the US is the good guy, ever.
> Topkek

Not even when you guys were fighting nazis you were the good guys, 

And for the US and dictatorships:

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Magic (Apr 14, 2018)

Isn't this like conspiracy chan ?



> Jake R. Morphonios is an investigative journalist for The End Times News Report and former political strategist and adviser to several campaigns, including those of presidential candidates Steve Forbes and Ron Paul.



Looking at some of his video titles, straight up paranoid angles and fear based speculations.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> You're pathetic. You are being intellectually dishonest and there is a lot you are not saying. You just don't have the balls to say it.
> 
> Once again, my ultimate position is against unilateral interventions. That's regardless of whether or not Assad gassed his own people. If he did, he's dumb and evil and he should be replaced. However, I question what role the United States should play in it. How is that hard to understand?



what's hard to understand is just how monumentally out of touch you are with human decency really

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

I don't think the US should be intervening everywhere willy nilly either before you start your reeing about muh military industrial complex but your position that the elections in Syria are legitimate representations of the will of the Syrian people; that a military coup is a legitimate representation of the will of the Syrian people; and that the Syrian people somewhat have the capacity to collectively ask for international aid but haven't been (this is the most fucking retarded part of your """logic""" by the way, that there are people in Syria asking for international aid but they don't count because they're not the government because the government is a dictatorship but that's fine because all governments represent the people of their country obviously. The whole thing is tautological in the extreme).

The reason I'm not engaging you isn't because I'm bad at debating - it's because you owe allegiance to an ideological position (military intervention is always bad) which you're not prepared to criticise or hear criticism directed towards and will instead substitute in a strawman where everyone who disagrees with the stupidity you invent to justify your absurdities (Assad was elected) is just a warmonger.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt a few times on stupidity of this contrarian nature (e.g. Hillary, Russian interference in the US 2016 election, Trumprussia, etc.) and every time you display the same basic lack of comprehension in favour of the self delusion that everyone except you is wrong and that you're the only sane person in the room. It's a complex you should probably see a therapist about because I'm scared one day I'm going to wake up and find out that you blew up a building somewhere fighting the globalist deep state.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Drake (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> I take a lot of things with a grain of salt, and it's fair to say that we should take those election results with a grain of salt, as well. However, many of the outlets reporting on Syria don't even have people in the country. The truth is, we don't know how strong the support for Assad is and I wish more people would admit it.



Assad is a dictator. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Assad has been violent against his own people in the past. It is also a fact that rebels took up arms against him. It is also a fact that people protested peacefully against him.

Again, these are all facts. These facts are what people are basing their opinions on Assad's approval on, while you're basically just accepting what the Syrian government (Assad) is saying about Assad, which obviously cannot be unbiased. Facts, however, are unbiased.



> I get your point, but that still sounds like a very dumb plan to me. He wouldn't need to do that, especially since he was already winning.



You say you get my point, but my point is that Assad using chemical weapons not as dumb as it sounds. Is it risky and probably unnecessary? Yes. However, you're trying to claim that it's so risky that Assad would never do such a thing, which definitely isn't true. Based on everything I said so far (and all the literal proof I provided about the USA's past mellow responses) suggests that it's actually more likely that the US wouldn't respond harshly to another chemical attack. I also showed that chemical weapons do have their uses in select scenarios like this one, which is why Assad may have decided to employ them. This isn't a "no reward, high risk" scenario like you seem to be implying.



> It's relevant to the discussion of the United States' war portfolio. This is also an extention of the AUMF, which has been abused.



But now you're delving into the argument of whether or not the US should be in Syria or Niger (two very different cases, by the way), which isn't relevant to the discussion about proving whether or not Assad gassed his own people.



> In 2015, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons concluded that i. This was based on reports of mustard gas in Syria near a rebel-held area and reports from the Peshmerga in Iraq that they have been hit with mortar that contained chemicals by ISIS fighters.



Firstly, that article mentions that helicopters were also heard there, which means that it must have been the Assad regime. Second, the idea that rebels may have access to chemical weapons does not mean that Assad does not (actually the article suggests the opposite because it says ISIS may have taken over an already-existing factory). Third, the rebel situation in Syria is extremely fragmented and disjointed, and it is very unlikely that even if the rebels did take over a chemical weapons facility at one point, they still have those weapons and that the same faction of rebels that took over that facility are the same ones in the gassed area now. But even all these are only minor points against your argument.

Most importantly, you should note two things: one, that the rebels actually capitulated in the area where the chemical attack was. Why would the rebels gas the area where their forces are and then surrender? That defeats the entire purpose of staging a gas attack. Two, not even the Assad regime is claiming what you're claiming, which is that the rebels gassed the populace. Instead, the Assad regime is saying the rebels lied about the chemical attack in general and that they're just lying to get international support. So basically the side you're arguing for doesn't even agree with your conclusions...



> Also, there were reports that fighters had been smuggled financial aid and oil. It's quite possible that the sources supplying them could smuggle in chemicals or the components of chemicals.



Again, very, very unlikely. ISIS has been fighting for years now, and they have other, much more significant costs than chemical weapons. There is almost a zero percent chance that they decided to ignore those more important costs (food, proper military equipment like vehicles and guns) and instead saved up money so they buy chemicals and stage attacks that won't even help them in the long run.



> This could be determined with a proper investigation and the the U.K, France, and the U.S. acted without one. That's all I'm saying.



Think about the feasibility of doing a "proper investigation" in Syria right now. US/France/UK acted with the information they had, which overwhelmingly suggests that Assad used chemical weapons. Sure, you could do a proper investigation and then come to that same conclusion, but that will take a ton of time and may be straight up impossible given the conditions on the ground there.

But you know, if you want to argue that they should have waited for a proper investigation, then okay, maybe. However, you cannot then turn around and say, "But I know that Assad didn't gas his people" like you have been saying.



> TBQH, both scenarios are likely. There are a lot of forces pushing for war, especially defense contractors who would benefit from weapons sales. Trump is an investor in Raytheon, which made the missles that were used in last years strikes on a Syrian airbase. It sounds cynical and conspiratorial, but the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
> 
> Also, Trump just appointed John Bolton as his national security adviser. Have you read some of the things he's said? He's a war hawk.



I don't disagree with anything you said here. Bolton does like war, and defense contractors will benefit from war. However, you are still ignoring that Trump does not want a war in Syria or that he does not want to anger Russia.I think what you're really trying to argue here is that Bolton is pushing Trump to escalate in Syria, and that is not good. Again, this is a reasonable view to have. However, what you've warped it into is "Bolton and defense contractors fabricated a chemical attack just to have a war!" Is that possible? Yes. Is it likely? Given the evidence we have, no, it is not likely. Bolton is undeniably playing up the chemical attacks, but given how much evidence we have (which I've discussed in detail already), it's unlikely that he just outright made it up.



> I want people to ask themselves questions and stop jumping to conclusions without proof.



Agreed, but in this case, we _do _have strong evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. It does not 100% confirm that he used them, but it sure suggest that he did. Also, you're trying to claim things like "Assad is popular" and "the rebels used gas on themselves," all of which have even LESS proof than Assad using chemical weapons, so...


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Apr 14, 2018)

Saishin said:


> You know that the colonies under Italy ruling saw a good development and administration from the Italians? In the case of Somalia I post this.We were much better than the Britis,French (and Americans ) in administrate a colony



I like you a lot Saishin, so please do not go there. Just say " We fucked up ". It's the best thing you'll do. Relativizing colonial rule is one road you don't want to go. It always leads to an argument in the end " So we did them a favor because they were uncivilized and primitive ". No colonization is good, it's not a matter of being less of a prick than brits or 'muricans, it's a matter of the fact that colonization gives birth to problems including but not restricted to: racism, racial tension, civil wars, poor division, destruction of culture, replacement and forceful implementation of a culture and literally low self esteem from the country itself.

Colonization is not good, was never good and will never be good. It's not my native language(And I am severely fatigued by diarrhea, vomiting and fever, I am exhausted), otherwise I'd explain it further. I really like you as a poster Saishin, but sincerely, trying to relativize colonial rule is beyond sickening.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that the colonized countries are all good and have a "good boy status" because they were colonized. Nor that we shouldn't condemn the atrocities coming from them(From us, since I am from such a country, I should speak in first person). For example, I condemn the War of the Triple Alliance done by Brazil, we basically went to genocide levels there and there's no amount of reasons, economic, social nor political that would excuse such a behavior.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Apr 14, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> Are pushing for invention in Syria? If so, is Australia even involved?





Nighty the Mighty said:


> The reason I'm not engaging you isn't because I'm bad at debating - it's because you're braindead and owe allegiance to an ideological position (military intervention is always bad) which you're not prepared to criticise or hear criticism directed towards and will instead substitute in a strawman where everyone who disagrees with the stupidity you invent to justify your absurdities (Assad was elected) is just a warmonger.



it's like I can see the future

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Your quite the idiot aren't you Ignition?



Nowadays you can say all kind of shit to the public and pretend its the truth huh?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 15, 2018)

If they truly bombed deposits and a research center as they claim where those chemical weapons are stored there would be far more casualities. The substances and gases would spread as missiles don't have the capability to absorb them when they explode. So anyway... time to bed


----------



## Mider T (Apr 15, 2018)

Ignition said:


> If they truly bombed deposits and a research center as they claim where those chemical weapons are stored there would be far more casualities. The substances and gases would spread as missiles don't have the capability to absorb them when they explode. So anyway... time to bed


Good idea.  When you post dumb shit the best course of action is to log off.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Xhominid (Apr 15, 2018)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> > People thinking the US is the good guy, ever.
> > Topkek
> 
> Not even when you guys were fighting nazis you were the good guys,
> ...




Seriously, alot of US citizens know we do some dirty shit if you simply read a book or something, our dealings with putting dictators we control in place of other dictators is practically really known to anyone smart.

My issue only comes in when people try and pretend their own shit don't stink and only criticize the U.S. on shady shit.
Hell, I've met way too many people who aren't blatantly nationalistic and will criticize the U.S., the Government, practically every decision that's ever made so I hate listening to when people start saying that Americans push up our shit when I see way too many defend their own countries' bullshit moreso to the point you can mistake them for being American.


----------



## Magic (Apr 15, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Good idea.  When you post dumb shit the best course of action is to log off.


Conspiracy theorist logic.

"The beams can't melt at that temp!!?!" Fuck out of here.


----------



## Mr. Good vibes (Apr 15, 2018)

On a different note the way I see this playing especially with Bolton now in is a eventual push towards a ground invasion ala Iraq as bombing Syria isn't going to accomplish much in terms of ousting or "deterring" Assad. Wonder how Trump gonna explain still being this to the portion of his base that voted for him partly because of his getting out of Syria redirect as he already has some big names on the right calling him out on this attack namely Tucker Carlson, Tomi Lahren, and even Alex Jones to an extent.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 15, 2018)

No offense but.....are you moving the goalposts abit here?



CrazyAries said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I still have questions. For starters, we have seen footage from after the suspected attack occurred. I have seen videos of children who were being treated with gas masks, others being treated with water, and those of people were announced dead. However, are those who are being treated being properly treated?
> 
> From what I’ve read, Sarin gas (and this suspected attack may have contained a mixture of sarin and chlorine gas), those who have been exposed to sarin must remove their close as quickly as possible and wash themselves with soap in water. The people in the videos are just being treated with water.



Do you think most people know how to treat Sarin gas? Especially in a warzone like Syria where many doctors are either dead, imprisoned or have fled the country? Additionally it's not like the perpetrators are announcing what sort of substance they are using either.



> Also, what are the names of the rebel groups? Are all those who were evacuated part of the same rebel group?


It seems like they belonged to the same group (Jaysh al-Islam) yes. Any reason as to why you're curious about this?



> Additionally, why would some of the civilians go into government-held territory?


Resignation probably. They know that wherever the rebels are evacuated to will be inevitably attacked sometime in the future and they will have to go through this horror once again. So they decide to try their luck and escape into government territory hopeful for any sort of semblance of stability and peace. I suspect for many though(particulary military aged men) it will be a fatal choice.




> Now, let’s say that Assad did call for a chemical attack. (Honestly, although he had a deal with the U.S. to get rid of all of his chemical weapons a few years ago, I don’t trust that he got rid of all his chemical weapons.) Wouldn’t that be extremely dumb on his part? He was already winning so there was no need for Assad to do this.



It was dumb yes, but dictators and regimes of all stripes have a odd historical tendency to commit stupid and irrational decisions based on ideology, misplaced overconfidence, delusion or other reasons. Assad is just the latest one of the bunch. And yet, despite that, this action wasn't the fatal mistake it seemed at first anyway, since despite the tough Western talk and indignation, their response was (once again) rather pathetic. So he DID end up getting away with it again.




> *If there was a full investigation that proved that Assad called for all those gas attacks, what should be done with him? And he’s going to be replaced, who’s going to replace him and who will be responsible for making sure there is stability in Syria?*



I won't pretend to have a magical solve-all answer to that question that's both moral and realistic. But what do you think yourself?


----------



## Drake (Apr 15, 2018)

CrazyAries said:


> No Drake, I'm not saying anything with certainty, except that Assad is a dictator who was oppressing some of his people before the war started. Once again, I'm against intervention regardless of it he's guilty.



And again, that is a reasonable view to have. The only thing I am trying to say is that you shouldn't use the (most likely false) idea that Assad didn't use chemical weapons as a justification for non-intervention.



> *Do you want the U.S. the intervene and what should it do? And what if U.S. involvement escalates to be another Iraq War?*



This isn't directly tied into the argument I was trying to make earlier, but I suppose I can still answer... Personally, I am still not sure about this. I think Assad should definitely be punished, but I am against a ground invasion or anything even close to the scale of the Iraq War. The most I would be willing to put up with for now is a sustained bombing campaign through the use of aircraft carriers or land bases, but I would prefer if the international community could find some way to put pressure on Russia without military action. A severe escalation in Syria is the last thing I want.


----------



## Saishin (Apr 15, 2018)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> I like you a lot Saishin, so please do not go there. Just say " We fucked up ". It's the best thing you'll do. Relativizing colonial rule is one road you don't want to go. It always leads to an argument in the end " So we did them a favor because they were uncivilized and primitive ". No colonization is good, it's not a matter of being less of a prick than brits or 'muricans, it's a matter of the fact that colonization gives birth to problems including but not restricted to: racism, racial tension, civil wars, poor division, destruction of culture, replacement and forceful implementation of a culture and literally low self esteem from the country itself.
> 
> Colonization is not good, was never good and will never be good. It's not my native language(And I am severely fatigued by diarrhea, vomiting and fever, I am exhausted), otherwise I'd explain it further. I really like you as a poster Saishin, but sincerely, trying to relativize colonial rule is beyond sickening.
> 
> Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that the colonized countries are all good and have a "good boy status" because they were colonized. Nor that we shouldn't condemn the atrocities coming from them(From us, since I am from such a country, I should speak in first person). For example, I condemn the War of the Triple Alliance done by Brazil, we basically went to genocide levels there and there's no amount of reasons, economic, social nor political that would excuse such a behavior.


Aww thank you,I like you as a poster as well 

It wasn't my intention with that post to revitalize colonization and for your information I'm not in favour of colonization,never was.Instead with that post I just wanted to say that when Somalia was given to Italy as a trust territory by the UN (thus it wasn't even anymore a colony) Somalia saw a growth in many fields of the society and economy,no more no less.I just wanted to highlight that the Italians in a land like Africa managed to give during those 10 years a positive contribution to Somalia compare to the British or the French,the latter once they game was over left the continent with no improvement,they rape the land and its people and as I said they left.

Then of course also Italy in its colonies commited atrocities at least in the first phases of colonization of those lands and this is obviously a shameful and dark page of Italy's history I'm not deny that.

So I agree with you when it comes to colonization,it was wrong and the european nations involved commited big crimes causing pain and discrimination to the local people.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## wibisana (Apr 15, 2018)

Maybe assad secretly want out. He is hoping someone assassinate him.
So he keep using that weapon which is only attract more international condemnation


----------



## CrazyAries (Apr 15, 2018)

Jin-E said:


> No offense but.....are you moving the goalposts abit here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for answering my questions. I think the international community needs to put pressure on Assad to investigate what happened. If it appears that he still produces chemical weapons and produces them, I would have no problem with sanctions against him. I am just loathe to regime change the United States has a bad history with it and it tends to destabilize regions even further.



Drake said:


> And again, that is a reasonable view to have. The only thing I am trying to say is that you shouldn't use the (most likely false) idea that Assad didn't use chemical weapons as a justification for non-intervention.



It's just one consideration, even if proven false. But we need an investigation. And if Assad is guilty, it seems that that is the ONLY reason those who want intervention are using.

Again, I will not argue against your point that Assad is a dictator because he was a leader_ who handpicked by his father in what was a one-party system_, he committed human rights abuses before the war started, and he had access to chemical weapons. Thus I don't like or trust him. However, the U.S. has supported other dictators, so there is selective outrage where Assad is concerned. And the U.S. is supporting a genocidal war in Yemen, which is worse than these gas attacks combined. This is not a defense of Assad, but I'm just putting things into perspective.



Drake said:


> This isn't directly tied into the argument I was trying to make earlier, but I suppose I can still answer... Personally, I am still not sure about this. I think Assad should definitely be punished, but I am against a ground invasion or anything even close to the scale of the Iraq War. The most I would be willing to put up with for now is a sustained bombing campaign through the use of aircraft carriers or land bases, but I would prefer if the international community could find some way to put pressure on Russia without military action. *A severe escalation in Syria is the last thing I want.*



So we agree about that the West should avoid a full-scale military escalation. I think the West needs to exhaust all the non-military options it has if it truly wants to help Syrian civilians. We need to be consistent, too, and establish if this is all about morality.

I just wonder what some other people want out of this. If Assad should be removed, who should replace him and who should be responsible for choosing his replacement? Most importantly, what do Syrians themselves want? Is it a crime to ask these questions?


----------



## Saishin (Apr 15, 2018)

There was a group of protestors in front of the US embassy in Rome,protesting against the bombing on Syria.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Apr 15, 2018)

Saishin said:


> So I agree with you when it comes to colonization,it was wrong and the european nations involved commited big crimes causing pain and discrimination to the local people.



Colonization was/is good in the sense that it's a step up from conquering, which is what we were doing previously.

Then again,. I think powers like rome used to both colonize and conquer, and it depended on the level of sophistication they were dealing with. Other civilizations of comparable sophistication had to be conquered, while less developed civilizations could be colonized.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Breadman (Apr 15, 2018)

I still don't get why we try to run interference with the Middle East after all this time. 

Face it, military might isn't cutting it. It's like trying to cover up a torn off arm with a Flintstones band-aid. It doesn't stop the bleeding.

Every single time the West has tried this shit, it either destabilizes a country, makes it no better than the way it was before intervening, or makes it even worse as an even worse dictator rises from the ashes of the fallen one.

I get that we don't wanna see Syrians suffer, but can we really guarantee that this will solve the issue when the past has shown how bad we are at fixing this stuff?


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 15, 2018)



Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Mider T (Apr 16, 2018)

Turkey supported it huh?  What's more surprising are how each Scandanaviam country had a different reaction.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Alwaysmind (Apr 16, 2018)

I noticed that Crimea isn’t part of Russia in this map.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Chelydra (Apr 16, 2018)

I'd just like to point out the stunt Trump pulled, he basically told the Russians that we were going to hit Syria despite Russian threats, then do so with no successful action on the part of the russian military. Made them look like a right idiot.

I'm sure our certain Russia bot may disagree.


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I'm sure our certain Russia bot may disagree.



Sorry, I don't know which bot you're talking about. There's too many to count here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Skaddix (Apr 16, 2018)

Alwaysmind said:


> I noticed that Crimea isn’t part of Russia in this map.




No Bailout for Greece. Sweden and Finland must be brought to Heel. And the Irish Problem must be dealt with.


----------



## JH24 (Apr 16, 2018)

Again, Assad will get away with it. And I hate that thought so, so much. I've read people comment "Why would Assad do this now? He's winning. It must be a false flag by the West."

I can only think "Why wouldn't he?" He's in a position of power. Russia and Iran have his back. This is his way of showing to his enemies that he will crush them, that no one will stop him and that he will do it again. He has shown his position of strength. And when peace negotiations will eventually begin, he can avoid unnecessary compromise and cut right to the heart of the matter.

He's a murderer, he will stay in power, and I hate it.

And in a few years, when Syria is re-building, both Iran and Russia will have a huge influence.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I'd just like to point out the stunt Trump pulled, he basically told the Russians that we were going to hit Syria despite Russian threats, then do so with no successful action on the part of the russian military. Made them look like a right idiot.
> 
> I'm sure our certain Russia bot may disagree.





I won't bother arguing with sheep specially from NF, considering people here know shit about what lead the crisis of Ukraine

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Apr 16, 2018)

Waiting for Russia's reaction


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 16, 2018)

Ignition said:


> I won't bother arguing with sheep specially from NF, considering people here know shit about what lead the crisis of Ukraine



Now I know who you're talking about @Chelydra


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 16, 2018)

Western folks are not respecting the soverign state of sirya by giving the rebels weaponry. The current state of the western civilization makes me sick. Bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 16, 2018)

Suigetsu said:


> Western folks are not respecting the soverign state of sirya by giving the rebels weaponry. The current state of the western civilization makes me sick. Bunch of hypocrites.


The West has already stated that Assad lost legitimacy when he first started gassing his own people, so he isn't the sovereign ruler in our eyes.  That was the whole original reason for intervention.


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 16, 2018)

Mider T said:


> The West has already stated that Assad lost legitimacy when he first started gassing his own people, so he isn't the sovereign ruler in our eyes.  That was the whole original reason for intervention.


How about you ask it to the people that resided in there to begin with? The west fucked the middle east beyond repair.

I spoke with a christian sister who had been living there for 10 years and told us how it was. Muslims and christians living peacefully, until the radicals that "the west supports" and started to go on a murdering spree but according to leftists those where peaceful marches. You bastards need to stop! Russia and China really ARE the good guys here.

Furthermore the current western logic it's pretty stupid:
Yo, we fucked your country so wanna come live on ours? I mean, what could popssibly go wrong? And while we are at it, why dont we let EVERYONE else come inside? like people that have nothing to do with this. Arab countries are also hipocrites, they send millions to build mosquees instead of helping and safeguarding their fellow muslim brothers and sisters. What a brotherhood...

All these people make me sick.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 16, 2018)

Suigetsu said:


> How about you ask it to the people that resided in there to begin with? The west fucked the middle east beyond repair.
> 
> I spoke with a christian sister who had been living there for 10 years and told us how it was. Muslims and christians living peacefully, until the radicals that "the west supports" and started to go on a murdering spree but according to leftists those where peaceful marches. You bastards need to stop! Russia and China really ARE the good guys here.
> 
> ...


Did you forget how the Arab Spring started?  I think we know how Syrians felt when millions of them started leaving after they begged for help that came too late.


----------



## Ignition (Apr 16, 2018)

Sheep believe gas attacks are real


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 16, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Did you forget how the Arab Spring started?  I think we know how Syrians felt when millions of them started leaving after they begged for help that came too late.


Sirya was never a part of the Arab spring. I know western society has become leftist as fuck and now hates christians, but I'll just drop this video here. If you dont know spanish then well, sucks for you.

Sirya had a dictatorship that worked. I love how the "team ONU" goes to fuck middle east while countries like venezuela get forgotten and left to rot.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 16, 2018)

Suigetsu said:


> Sirya was never a part of the Arab spring. I know western society has become leftist as fuck and now hates christians, but I'll just drop this video here. If you dont know spanish then well, sucks for you.
> 
> Sirya had a dictatorship that worked. I love how the "team ONU" goes to fuck middle east while countries like venezuela get forgotten and left to rot.



Wow, the CIA surely is impressive, being able to mobilize literally millions of people simultaneously after mind-controlling assad troops into massacring protesters.

Anyway, Assad the 1st backed militias which massacred Christians in Lebanon. "Muh tolerance" is a giant meme.


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 16, 2018)

Megaharrison said:


> Wow, the CIA surely is impressive, being able to mobilize literally millions of people simultaneously after mind-controlling assad troops into massacring protesters.
> 
> Anyway, Assad the 1st backed militias which massacred Christians in Lebanon. "Muh tolerance" is a giant meme.


I dunno dude, whenever I see sirians they all say the same. Westerners giving ammo to the terrorists and terrorists killing christians everywhere in middle east. I dont know what you mean with all of that to be honest. I know this "pacific protest" wherent very pacific to begin with. Not saying the current government was the best in the world but at least it was a country, now a days it's the ruins of a 40k game board.


----------



## Zenith (Apr 16, 2018)

Ignition said:


> I won't bother arguing with sheep specially from NF, considering people here know shit about what lead the crisis of Ukraine



I can't help but wonder if they pay you in rubles or in vodka?


----------



## Darkmatter (Apr 16, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I can't help but wonder if they pay you in rubles or in vodka?



Vodka is more valuable than Rubles.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ignition (Apr 16, 2018)

Zenith said:


> I can't help but wonder if they pay you in rubles or in vodka?



They pay me with your salt


----------



## Zenith (Apr 16, 2018)

Darkmatter said:


> Vodka is more valuable than Rubles.



clever!



Ignition said:


> They pay me with your salt




aaaaah well in that case get ready to visit your local doctor because you'll be running low on sodium very soon


----------



## Mider T (Apr 17, 2018)

Suigetsu said:


> Sirya was never a part of the Arab spring. I know western society has become leftist as fuck and now hates christians,


Syria*

Also wow, so much wrong in one post.


----------



## Kobe (Apr 17, 2018)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...uma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 17, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Syria*
> 
> Also wow, so much wrong in one post.


“So much wrong” 
Did you even watched the video that I posted?


----------



## GRIMMM (Apr 17, 2018)



Reactions: Funny 1 | Winner 5


----------



## Santoryu (Apr 17, 2018)

Terrible move.

Trump proving every day that he has far more in common with his predecessors than what many of his supporters believed. He had ample amounts of hindsight too. Our prime-minister just continues to grave-dig, doesn't she? Also, many of the Labour mp's are backing her action; keep in mind that these are the same idiots that supported the atrocious military action on Lybia.


----------



## Blue (Apr 17, 2018)

hcheng02 said:


> Seriously Blue? Trump might be in the pocket of the Kremlin and once literally leaked top secret intel to the Russians in the goddamn White House but a few missiles in Syria - which will neither stop the war or overthrow Assad and that's enough to get your vote? What the hell?


Everyone is aware at this point that the entire Russia connection was a fantasy of Never-Trumpers. Anyone unbiased knew Russia was fake news from the moment Comey testified that he'd told Trump there was no investigation or plans to start one. 

Mueller has moved on and now we're hearing about his efforts regarding obstruction of (fake) justice and porn star connections. Which might actually yield something, but I can't bring myself to care.

I'm not sure what part of absolutely humiliating the Russians on the world stage you think looks like the actions of a Kremlin stooge. I think if you take a step back you'd realize Russia was never a real country to begin with and no American politician in their right might would pay them any attention. I'd be willing to listen to accusations of Chinese or Japanese or German collusion. 

So yes, everything you mentioned is a nonfactor, and crushing the Russian narrative of a new, strong Russia that started with Obama's ignoring of Crimea and Syria is worth a hundred million stupid tweets.


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 17, 2018)

Blue said:


> Everyone is aware at this point that the entire Russia connection was a fantasy of Never-Trumpers. Anyone unbiased knew Russia was fake news from the moment Comey testified that he'd told Trump there was no investigation or plans to start one.
> 
> Mueller has moved on and now we're hearing about his efforts regarding obstruction of (fake) justice and porn star connections. Which might actually yield something, but I can't bring myself to care.
> 
> ...



You have Trump's son literally tweeting out that he met with Kremlin lawyers to throw the election to Trump's favor and Trump admitting on TV that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation and you still think that there is no Russian connection? 

And what humiliation? Russia was not humiliated by this incident. I would hesitate to even call this a mild setback. These missile attacks and air strikes amount to nothing. The Russians are still backing Assad, and they still have the advantage in the Syrian Civil War. Russia is more powerful than it ever was under Obama for the simple fact that they now have the US president Trump by the balls. Trump is terrified of offending Russia because his entire business is propped up by Russian oligarchs' money. He never says anything bad about them despite not being afraid to insult anyone else, and any actions the US government does against Russia is done is spite of Trump. It takes the entire machinery of the US government to drag Trump kicking and screaming to do anything to oppose Russia.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Blue (Apr 17, 2018)

There was no Russia investigation when Comey was fired. That was the crux of the disagreement. Trump wished Comey to say that there was no investigation publically as he had privately, and Comey refused.

And what happened in Syria was absolutely a brutal humiliation. Russia had pledged to defend Syria and retaliate for any strikes. 

And nobody cared. The strikes happened anyway, and predictably, Russia did nothing but lodge a protest at the UN, exposing to the world what a ghost power it really is.

I think you might be a little deranged if you still believe Russia is in control of Trump. Here you go:


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 17, 2018)

Blue said:


> There was no Russia investigation when Comey was fired. That was the crux of the disagreement. Trump wished Comey to say that there was no investigation publically as he had privately, and Comey refused.
> 
> And what happened in Syria was absolutely a brutal humiliation. Russia had pledged to defend Syria and retaliate for any strikes.
> 
> ...



Uh yes there was. Comey testified on March 20, 2017 that the FBI was investigating Russian interference into the election, and Trump fired him on May 9, 2017.

interview with National Public Radio on Monday

The Syrian strikes are not a brutal humiliation, it was a mild annoyance. Russian threw some insults and the US called its bluff. Russia did not retaliate because it did not need to retaliate. Nothing materially changes on the ground. The strategic situation is still the same, with Assad still getting Russian aid and with the upper hand in the war. Russia knows that the West does not have the stomach to change the balance of power in Syria. 

Also, I used up my free articles on Foreign Policy. What does the article actually say? I can't read the link. What's the argument?


----------



## Blue (Apr 17, 2018)

> *Trump told 'not under investigation'*
> *What the Trump administration said:* Mr Trump said he was told by the director "on three separate occasions" that he was not being investigated by the FBI.
> 
> *What Mr Comey's statement says:* He backs the president's account: "I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him." Mr Comey says he repeated that assurance in two subsequent meetings.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40196105



hcheng02 said:


> Uh yes there was. Comey testified on March 20, 2017 that the FBI was investigating Russian interference into the election, and Trump fired him on May 9, 2017.
> 
> interview with National Public Radio on Monday
> 
> ...


It's nice arguing with someone who reads things, actually.


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 17, 2018)

Blue said:


> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40196105
> 
> 
> It's nice arguing with someone who reads things, actually.



Comey told Trump that he was not being specifically targeted in the Russian probe, not that there was no investigation on Russian interference to begin with. Trump fired him because he wanted to stop the investigation, because any snooping around would eventually lead to him as proven by how Trump Jr. met with Kremlin lawyers along with Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner to screw over Hillary.

Also, the Foreign Policy article does not mention the biggest flaw in their argument: that Trump is a lazy, semi-literate, incompetent leader who leaves most of the actual governing to his Cabinet and aides. I mean, this guy once gave Steve Bannon a seat on the National Security Council simply because he signed the order Bannon gave him without reading it.  He only really cares about what Fox News says, and just signs off on things that don't appear on Fox and Friends. That's why he blew up at his aides when the USA expelled 60 Russian diplomats because he didn't pay attention to how many people he would expel. He only found out when Fox News reported on it and thought that it was a sign that the USA was taking the lead in expelling the most Russian diplomats, even though it was the same sum total diplomats that Europe expelled. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wanted-to-expel-fewer-russian-diplomats-2018-4

Also, things like the Russian sanctions were authorized only after Congress passed them with veto proof majorities, so Trump only agreed to them as a face saving measure. Even then, Trump tries to slow walk and interfere with sanctions because he fears Russian response. This despite outright contradicting is UN ambassador Nikki Haley and other members of his administration.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/trump-nikki-haley-russia-sanctions-526856


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Apr 17, 2018)

Anyone else thinks Trump wanting his troops to leave Syria is a bad idea?


----------



## Mider T (Apr 17, 2018)

Prince Vegeta said:


> Anyone else thinks Trump wanting his troops to leave Syria is a bad idea?


Nope.  But Saudi is offering to pick up the slack so as long as that General changeover they did is effective I'll allow it.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 18, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I'd just like to point out the stunt Trump pulled, he basically told the Russians that we were going to hit Syria despite Russian threats, then do so with no successful action on the part of the russian military. Made them look like a right idiot.
> 
> I'm sure our certain Russia bot may disagree.


Shut the fuck up about bots. The discussions are already low quality, no reason to bring a more reductive POV to the table.


Mider T said:


> The West has already stated that Assad lost legitimacy when he first started gassing his own people, so he isn't the sovereign ruler in our eyes.  That was the whole original reason for intervention.



What about countries who rackerd up similar casualtuies during the Arab Spring by different means. They are legit?


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Apr 18, 2018)

Mider T said:


> Nope.  But Saudi is offering to pick up the slack so as long as that General changeover they did is effective I'll allow it.


I mean a war against Iran would be a bit easier with Syria under control ,or do you think that doesnt matter ?


----------



## Mider T (Apr 18, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> What about countries who rackerd up similar casualtuies during the Arab Spring by different means. They are legit?


What about them?  Can you for once not stray from the discussion?  Do you have ADD?


Prince Vegeta said:


> I mean a war against Iran would be a bit easier with Syria under control ,or do you think that doesnt matter ?



Who said anything about war with Iran?


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 18, 2018)

Mider T said:


> What about them?  Can you for once not stray from the discussion?  Do you have ADD?



You telling me that you are sticking to it right now?


----------



## Mider T (Apr 18, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> You telling me that you are sticking to it right now?


English please.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 18, 2018)

Mider T said:


> English please.


Discussion, not a judgement hour please.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 18, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Discussion, not a judgement hour please.


No I legitimately can't understand you.  I dunno why you can't just answer what I ask, makes me think you don't understand me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 18, 2018)

Mider T said:


> No I legitimately can't understand you.  I dunno why you can't just answer what I ask, makes me think you don't understand me.


Thta's okay, i don't think highly enough you to see aas anything else than a dfick measurer.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Mider T (Apr 18, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Thta's okay, i don't think highly enough you to see aas anything else than a dfick measurer.


I see I riled you up and caused you to have a seizure again.  That's okay, don't hurt yourself.  I accept the concession as usual.


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 18, 2018)

Mider T said:


> I see I riled you up and caused you to have a seizure again.  That's okay, don't hurt yourself.  I accept the concession as usual.


As a cosmo bumpkin i think that is beyond your capabalities.


----------



## Benedict Cumberzatch (Apr 18, 2018)

The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> As a cosmo bumpkin i think that is beyond your capabalities.





The Kamal Haasan Crazy Hour said:


> Thta's okay, i don't think highly enough you to see aas anything else than a dfick measurer.



Considering the rules on flaming, not sure why you keep getting by 

@baconbits


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 18, 2018)

Benedict Cumberzatch said:


> Considering the rules on flaming, not sure why you keep getting by
> 
> @baconbits


Pretty much we act the same. if i go he should also.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Apr 18, 2018)

Mider T said:


> What about them?  Can you for once not stray from the discussion?  Do you have ADD?
> 
> 
> Who said anything about war with Iran?


It's inevitable it will happen eventually and when it does it would make things easier with Syria under control


----------



## Rukia (Apr 18, 2018)

Why are we meddling in this?


----------



## Blue (Apr 18, 2018)

Thank you Mider and Kemal for making this thread totally worth reading. 



Rukia said:


> Why are we meddling in this?


Because chemical weapons. They're bad?


----------



## Rukia (Apr 18, 2018)

Americans didn’t get gassed.


----------



## Ashi (Apr 18, 2018)

And they didn't even bomb a weapons facility


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 18, 2018)

Rukia said:


> Americans didn’t get gassed.


Across the four seas all men are brothers

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Kansas City Kipchaks Point Guard (Apr 19, 2018)

makeoutparadise said:


> Across the four seas all men are brothers


Some of my brothers are fucking barbarians in that case. In some cases, fuck them.


----------

