Syria (merged)

[Chancy Termites]

Russia sending war ships.. http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

 

[dronefromsector7g]

An Assad-less Syria will be much worse. The US isn't going in because of gas attacks on children. This thread is back and forth like so many others, but for me the West will do whatever benefits it the most. The military-industrial complex post was nail on head, Obama and Dave are fucking puppets for the real leaders.

 

[Josh Blue]

An Assad-less Syria will be much worse. The US isn't going in because of gas attacks on children. This thread is back and forth like so many others, but for me the West will do whatever benefits it the most. The military-industrial complex post was nail on head, Obama and Dave are fucking puppets for the real leaders.

Some sense at last. I just wish these other numptys would read some history.

 

[dronefromsector7g]

An Assad-less Syria will be much worse. The US isn't going in because of gas attacks on children. This thread is back and forth like so many others, but for me the West will do whatever benefits it the most. The military-industrial complex post was nail on head, Obama and Dave are fucking puppets for the real leaders.

Some sense at last. I just wish these other numptys would read some history.

They read, but most books tell the Disney-esque version. Sick of watching the Beeb trying to brainwash us. Troops have been mobilised even before 'proof' of these chemical attacks is found.

 

[BlueHammer85]

An Assad-less Syria will be much worse. The US isn't going in because of gas attacks on children. This thread is back and forth like so many others, but for me the West will do whatever benefits it the most. The military-industrial complex post was nail on head, Obama and Dave are fucking puppets for the real leaders.

Some sense at last. I just wish these other numptys would read some history.

Historic wars are irrelevant to intervention in trying to prevent Syrian children being gassed - Josh you offer nothing, no alternatives to the situation like Skashion does. Your just anti west no matter what.

 

[Josh Blue]

An Assad-less Syria will be much worse. The US isn't going in because of gas attacks on children. This thread is back and forth like so many others, but for me the West will do whatever benefits it the most. The military-industrial complex post was nail on head, Obama and Dave are fucking puppets for the real leaders.

Some sense at last. I just wish these other numptys would read some history.

Historic wars are irrelevant to intervention in trying to prevent Syrian children being gassed - Josh you offer nothing, no alternatives to the situation like Skashion does. Your just anti west no matter what.

Mark you really don't understand the situation even a tiny bit. You see children being gassed and want to topple the regime, without concrete evidence the regime actually used the gas.

You're probably happy to buy products made from child labor and turn a blind eye to the children being killed by drone strikes. You even attempted to say the invasion of Iraq had positives even though thousands and thousands of children were brutally killed. Now the children in Iraq and born deformed and covered in tumours thanks to the depleated uranium used by British and American forces.

Hypocritical and you just follow the medias mantra on near enough anything. The media is there to pull the wool over your eyes Mark. Know your enemy.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Some sense at last. I just wish these other numptys would read some history.

Historic wars are irrelevant to intervention in trying to prevent Syrian children being gassed - Josh you offer nothing, no alternatives to the situation like Skashion does. Your just anti west no matter what.

Mark you really don't understand the situation even a tiny bit. You see children being gassed and want to topple the regime, without concrete evidence the regime actually used the gas.

You're probably happy to buy products made from child labor and turn a blind eye to the children being killed by drone strikes. You even attempted to say the invasion of Iraq had positives even though thousands and thousands of children were brutally killed. Now the children in Iraq and born deformed and covered in tumours thanks to the depleated uranium used by British and American forces.

Hypocritical and you just follow the medias mantra on near enough anything. The media is there to pull the wool over your eyes Mark. Know your enemy.

Syria - and what will be your answer IF there is concrete proof that the regime are using chemical weapons on children ?.. Let them carry on ?

Iraq - So it's ok for Saddam to kill as many people as he likes but when the west intervene and lives are lost its wrong ? That sounds like hypocrisy to me

The west are responsible for many evil things in the world but that's no justification to turn a blind eye away from evil dictators that kill there own.

 

[Josh Blue]

Historic wars are irrelevant to intervention in trying to prevent Syrian children being gassed - Josh you offer nothing, no alternatives to the situation like Skashion does. Your just anti west no matter what.

Mark you really don't understand the situation even a tiny bit. You see children being gassed and want to topple the regime, without concrete evidence the regime actually used the gas.

You're probably happy to buy products made from child labor and turn a blind eye to the children being killed by drone strikes. You even attempted to say the invasion of Iraq had positives even though thousands and thousands of children were brutally killed. Now the children in Iraq and born deformed and covered in tumours thanks to the depleated uranium used by British and American forces.

Hypocritical and you just follow the medias mantra on near enough anything. The media is there to pull the wool over your eyes Mark. Know your enemy.

Syria - and what will be your answer IF there is concrete proof that the regime are using chemical weapons on children ?.. Let them carry on ?

Iraq - So it's ok for Saddam to kill as many people as he likes but when the west intervene and lives are lost its wrong ? That sounds like hypocrisy to me

The west are responsible for many evil things in the world but that's no justification to turn a blind eye away from evil dictators that kill there own.

Turn a blind eye to evil? They actively support the evil.

Saddam was a western puppet, he was put in charge and funded by the States and British. Regan sold him the chemical gas which was eventually used on the kurds.

The whole reason the West supported him was to go to war with Iran which lots of people died in.

The West don't give a fuck about kids and evil, they actively support evil.

 

[bluemanc]

Russia sending war ships.. http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

Iran getting involved aswell.
Keep my Armed Forces well away from this nightmare,anyone thinking limited action will be enough will be in for a shock,methinks.
Btw dropping the bomb on Japan saved 500,000-1 million Allied casualties,as far as i'm concerned that is the bottom line.
Didn't know until recently Kamikaze pilots were mostly made up of university students.
Carry on.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

Russia sending war ships.. http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

Iran getting involved aswell.
Keep my Armed Forces well away from this nightmare,anyone thinking limited action will be enough will be in for a shock,methinks.
Btw dropping the bomb on Japan saved 500,000-1 million Allied casualties,as far as i'm concerned that is the bottom line.
Didn't know until recently Kamikaze pilots were mostly made up of university students.
Carry on.

If they were Textile Technology students from the Mexborough annexe of the University of Penistone then their forced immolation was certainly justified.

 

[Kippaxstreetheadache]

Let's remove the "childish" name calling. You say that our intervention "probably" saved millions of lives. There was a strong feeling at the time that appeasement would have achieved exactly that. We cannot know if an exodus would have cost more or less lives so it's a pointless argument.

Back to Syria, We cannot know what the actions of Assad will be if his use of nerve agent goes unpunished. We only know that all the evidence points to the fact that he used it. And he has lots more.

I stated earlier that I don't know what the correct response is only that to do nothing is the wrong response. That Al Nusra may be the greater of the two evils does not excuse the breach of international law. Where genocide has taken place we all and by that I mean humanity has a responsibility to act just as we have the responsibility to act when chemical weapons are used, but finding an appropriate method and time of response is the difficult bit.

Jumping in the war in 1939 saved no lives at all. Only later when the evidence of genocide began to emerge in 1941 and Churchill delivered his "crime without a name" speech. So, when that evidence became evident later then intervention would still have been possible.

What evidence is there that he ordered it? Evidence is claimed but so was it in the 45-minute dossier. Indeed, I cannot predict the future, nor can anyone else, but that's no more an argument for intervention than non-intervention. The default position should be non-intervention. Indeed, is. What I have laid out, is my best guess based on the facts we know about the region's sectarian problems, about Syria's sectarian problems, about the casualties so far, about the parties involved in this war, and about our inability to prevent sectarian violence even with a huge ground presence. We know Assad can prevent Syria descending into sectarian violence chaos because that was Syria pre-war. I say again too, the Syrian people back me in my assessment. Assad is better than the alternatives. Conducting strikes must weaken him. It cannot possibly strengthen him, and somehow if they did, how could you justify that?

[bigimg]http://wallgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jackie-Chan-Meme-Template.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/763574121_1373118355.jpg[/bigimg]

 

[rick773]

Russia sending war ships.. http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

Iran getting involved aswell.
Keep my Armed Forces well away from this nightmare,anyone thinking limited action will be enough will be in for a shock,methinks.
Btw dropping the bomb on Japan saved 500,000-1 million Allied casualties,as far as i'm concerned that is the bottom line.
Didn't know until recently Kamikaze pilots were mostly made up of university students.
Carry on.

If they were Textile Technology students from the Mexborough annexe of the University of Penistone then their forced immolation was certainly justified.

Anytime I see signs for penistone I can't stop laughing, possibly because mine's tone is a few shades darker than the rest of me.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

Iran getting involved aswell.
Keep my Armed Forces well away from this nightmare,anyone thinking limited action will be enough will be in for a shock,methinks.
Btw dropping the bomb on Japan saved 500,000-1 million Allied casualties,as far as i'm concerned that is the bottom line.
Didn't know until recently Kamikaze pilots were mostly made up of university students.
Carry on.

If they were Textile Technology students from the Mexborough annexe of the University of Penistone then their forced immolation was certainly justified.

Anytime I see signs for penistone I can't stop laughing, possibly because mine's tone is a few shades darker than the rest of me.

I knew it was time for stronger glasses when I misread it as Penis to me and caused a multi car pile up.

 

[stonerblue]

Do you believe that nuking Japan was the best course of action in ww2 then Skash?

I was wondering when this question would rear its ugly head.
The main reasoning trotted out by those supporting this indiscriminate and cowardly act is usually something like, "but it saved more lives in the long run."
An opinion which i, much like the Japanese kids still suffering the effects of radiation today, find hard to stomach.

 

[RandomJ]

Do you believe that nuking Japan was the best course of action in ww2 then Skash?

I was wondering when this question would rear its ugly head.
The main reasoning trotted out by those supporting this indiscriminate and cowardly act is usually something like, "but it saved more lives in the long run."
An opinion which i, much like the Japanese kids still suffering the effects of radiation today, find hard to stomach.

It's true though. Also seeing the devastating effects of these bombs used on actual places and not just test sites also prevented America and Russia from bombing the shit out of each other too later on down the line. It was a horrible attack and obviously the victims didn't deserve it but you really can't argue it saved more lives than it took.

 

[stonerblue]

Do you believe that nuking Japan was the best course of action in ww2 then Skash?

I was wondering when this question would rear its ugly head.
The main reasoning trotted out by those supporting this indiscriminate and cowardly act is usually something like, "but it saved more lives in the long run."
An opinion which i, much like the Japanese kids still suffering the effects of radiation today, find hard to stomach.

It's true though. Also seeing the devastating effects of these bombs used on actual places and not just test sites also prevented America and Russia from bombing the shit out of each other too later on down the line. It was a horrible attack and obviously the victims didn't deserve it but you really can't argue it saved more lives than it took.

i can but i can't be arsed just now. If Assad used that line about a CW attack would it be justified?

 

[foetus]

Not sure if this is appropriate for the thread or not...

 

[Skashion]

but you really can't argue it saved more lives than it took.

No, you really can, a) Japan was ready to surrender b) the USSR's entrance into the war was actually the bigger factor in accepting unconditional surrender.

I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.

Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.

John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War

P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.

President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

J. Samuel Walker

 

[2sheikhs]

Is this scenario either unlikely, possible or probable;
Russia wants to help Assad and tries to send a supply vessel to Syria.
The USA stop the ship and don't allow it to dock.
A catastrophic major conflict then unfolds.

 

[Josh Blue]

Support for the two nukes dropped on innocent civilians in WW2? WTF. People are so detached from reality it's scary.