Attack on Syria imminent

[Beardy McFuckface]

I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible.  They seem to be the ones who will gain.  No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.

When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.

Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward? 

Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack.  I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.

Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.

Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.

[RageBeoulve]

I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible.  They seem to be the ones who will gain.  No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.

When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.

Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward? 

Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack.  I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.

Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.

Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.

Well yeah. That's why I called it a LAST RESORT.

[RageBeoulve]

So. You watch the video, folks? You like watching people be brutalized by cocky storm troopers? You like watching them shoot people's dogs? Invade their homes on bullshit charges and traumatize their children?

I can post a lot more of that. Wanna see it? It'll make you feel reaaaaaal safe.

[Semicolon]

The US sent food to Sweden during the 1867 famine here. That might be one of the last times the US actually helped someone without a thought on profit.

The US sent "help" to Texas in 1846, because the Mexican constitution prohibited slavery.

The US provoked the CSA to attack in 1863 to force the southern states back in the union.

The US "liberated" the Philippines in 1898.

The US sent "democracy" to Mexico 1913.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe 1917-19.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe again 1941-45, although they didn't have much against the nazis as long as Hitler stayed on the European mainland and his allies the Japanese hadn't yet attacked Pearl harbor.

The US sent "democracy" to Korea and Vietnam in the 1950's and -60's.

The US sent "democracy" to Iran and Nicaragua in the 1980's.

The US sent "democracy" to Iraq in 1992. It just happened to be that Quwait was full of oil.

The US sent "democracy" to Bosnia etc, but only after it stood clear that the Russians supported the Serbs.

The US sent "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 and onwards.

The US sent "democracy" to Libya last year and this year.

Yet people are still being fooled 

What a lazy list. First, the American Civil War started in 1861. Second, you forget all US intervention in Central America. Third, you seem to hold double standards that criticize the US both ways. In your example of WWII, do you hold the US at fault for getting involved or for not getting involved? We didn't launch an all-out attack until after Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, but we had been sending the Allies supplies for a while beforehand.

Also, you've only listed armed conflicts. Where are the humanitarian missions and the foreign aid?

[RageBeoulve]

The US sent food to Sweden during the 1867 famine here. That might be one of the last times the US actually helped someone without a thought on profit.

The US sent "help" to Texas in 1846, because the Mexican constitution prohibited slavery.

The US provoked the CSA to attack in 1863 to force the southern states back in the union.

The US "liberated" the Philippines in 1898.

The US sent "democracy" to Mexico 1913.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe 1917-19.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe again 1941-45, although they didn't have much against the nazis as long as Hitler stayed on the European mainland and his allies the Japanese hadn't yet attacked Pearl harbor.

The US sent "democracy" to Korea and Vietnam in the 1950's and -60's.

The US sent "democracy" to Iran and Nicaragua in the 1980's.

The US sent "democracy" to Iraq in 1992. It just happened to be that Quwait was full of oil.

The US sent "democracy" to Bosnia etc, but only after it stood clear that the Russians supported the Serbs.

The US sent "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 and onwards.

The US sent "democracy" to Libya last year and this year.

Yet people are still being fooled 

What a lazy list. First, the American Civil War started in 1861. Second, you forget all US intervention in Central America. Third, you seem to hold double standards that criticize the US both ways. In your example of WWII, do you hold the US at fault for getting involved or for not getting involved? We didn't launch an all-out attack until after Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, but we had been sending the Allies supplies for a while beforehand.

Also, you've only listed armed conflicts. Where are the humanitarian missions and the foreign aid?

What does that have to do with opposing armed invasions of other countries?

[Adam]

I don't think the US should stay out of things just becuase it's "none of their business"

that's not to say they SHOULD intervene, but we can't say the rest of the world should never do anything whenever something's going to shit in another country just because we need to mind our own business

It should be about what would cause the least damage and suffering to civilians. If military intervention by a US/UK etc coalition would make things worse for the people of Syria, then stay the fuck out. And that has tp be thought of in the long term as well as tthe short term.

But not just becuase we need to mind our own business. Imo something DOES need to be done. But I'm not convinced  a US/UK missile strike is that "something"

[TheoK]

What a lazy list. First, the American Civil War started in 1861.

Yes, Lincoln was a criminal provoking the war against the CSA.

Second, you forget all US intervention in Central America.

I know I didn't get it all. I posted the most important examples.

Third, you seem to hold double standards that criticize the US both ways. In your example of WWII, do you hold the US at fault for getting involved or for not getting involved? We didn't launch an all-out attack until after Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, but we had been sending the Allies supplies for a while beforehand.

The US sent help to the UK, because Churchill urged the US to do so. I hold the US for getting involved just for the sake of its own interests.

Also, you've only listed armed conflicts. Where are the humanitarian missions and the foreign aid?

Mention some of those that weren't linked to the armed conflicts.

[Calavera]

I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible.  They seem to be the ones who will gain.  No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.

When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.

Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward? 

Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack.  I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.

Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.

Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.

If it's not their business, then whose business should it be? The Islamicists and the Russians?

[Calavera]

If I'm not mistaken, she looks Christian to me. That may explain the bias for Bashar, but she's still not a credible source to go to.

[Calavera]

And she's a conspiracy theorist. That makes it worse.

[TheoK]

I don't think the US should stay out of things just becuase it's "none of their business"

that's not to say they SHOULD intervene, but we can't say the rest of the world should never do anything whenever something's going to shit in another country just because we need to mind our own business

It should be about what would cause the least damage and suffering to civilians. If military intervention by a US/UK etc coalition would make things worse for the people of Syria, then stay the fuck out. And that has tp be thought of in the long term as well as tthe short term.

But not just becuase we need to mind our own business. Imo something DOES need to be done. But I'm not convinced  a US/UK missile strike is that "something"

They just intervene if they can gain something. They would never do something like this, for example. Swedish officers in Afghanistan trying to protect Afghan women. Sweden doesn't benefit one iota from this.

[RageBeoulve]

If I'm not mistaken, she looks Christian to me. That may explain the bias for Bashar, but she's still not a credible source to go to.

Because of her (possible) religion?

[Semicolon]

What a lazy list. First, the American Civil War started in 1861.

Yes, Lincoln was a criminal provoking the war against the CSA.

Second, you forget all US intervention in Central America.

I know I didn't get it all. I posted the most important examples.

Third, you seem to hold double standards that criticize the US both ways. In your example of WWII, do you hold the US at fault for getting involved or for not getting involved? We didn't launch an all-out attack until after Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, but we had been sending the Allies supplies for a while beforehand.

The US sent help to the UK, because Churchill urged the US to do so. I hold the US for getting involved just for the sake of its own interests.

Also, you've only listed armed conflicts. Where are the humanitarian missions and the foreign aid?

Mention some of those that weren't linked to the armed conflicts.

This and this are two links explaining US foreign aid. Yes, military aid is included in these figures. If you want it straight from the US government, click here. If you don't feel like reading all of it, skip to page 74.

How do you hold Lincoln to be a criminal for the American Civil War?

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany. All nations act according to their interests.

I notice that you vilify absolutely everything that the US has done over the past century or so without making any room for the good that has been done. You also don't seem to hold other nations to these standards. The US government may be a tyrannical, Constitution-breaking den of thieves, but it's not as black and white as you claim.

[RageBeoulve]

Incidentally, the US got involved militarily in WWII because we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany.

because we were attacked by Japan

had war declared on us by Germany

Uh-huh. And defending ourselves is perfectly acceptable. That does not help your case, bud.

[Beardy McFuckface]

I agree with Parts when he says it could be the rebels who are responsible.  They seem to be the ones who will gain.  No one should take any action until it is beyond doubt who carried out the chemical attack.

When it is established and if it is established to be Assad then action must be through the UN.

Why is it always USA and UK who seem to go blindly forward? 

Protecting civillians could be to issue them with gas masks, or the means necessary to survive a possible further attack.  I wonder how the cost of this compares with military action.

Military action is ridiculously more expensive and gets more people killed in a situation like this. Military action is a deterrent. A last resort.

Military action shouldn't eve be an option if America is not under any threat from them. This is not their business, as usual.

If it's not their business, then whose business should it be? The Islamicists and the Russians?

Unless they are a threat to America, they should stay out. Russia would have more of a concern.

The US sent "democracy" to Europe 1917-19.

No. The Greeks were the first civilisation to utilise democracy.