IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
I doubt China will do any of that.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
Well said, Meltdown.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
I doubt China will do any of that.
But we're not China. If that really don't want peace, do we really want to follow their example? Why not set a better example, one that makes more sense, one that might be attractive enough that they will follow it?
Let's stop making excuses for more war. That has only led us down, down, down into the quagmire of endless, futile war we are in.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The research facility that was bombed was a cancer research facility ... for those who don't know ... cancer related medicines are part of the sanctions imposed on Syria ... we also know that the OPCW inspected the facility for the 2nd time in November 2017 and said there was no suspicious activity ...
source?
assuming you are referring to the inspection? ... lots of sources that the barzah research facility was bombed ...
here is the OPCW report on Syria ... search on barzah to find the specific statement from the OPCW
The report does not confirm what you state. In fact, the report states that the Syrian authorities weren’t completely forthcoming with answers to questions posed. See paragraph 10. Further, the report states that further inspections are required to confirm that the 25 of 27 sites remain non functional, inclusive of previously known underground facilities. Are there unknown underground facilities? Do the Russians not have chemical weapons capabilities? No wonder 3D wants you to work with him.
seriously!??? ... you read the entire 3 page document and that's what you got?
first of all - it most definitely stated what I said ... NO chemical weapons in Bazrah ... sorry to everyone it does not copy and paste well ... if you read section 11 - it clearly states there are no chemical weapons in Bazrah ...
the fact that the Syrian delegation may not have answered fully all questions is subjective on how you interpret it ... also the report states that they verified that 25 of the 27 facilities were in fact destroyed ... the conclusion clearly states it will continue to monitor the 2 remaining and underground sites ... well, they don't need to monitor 1 of the 2 because it's been blown up ...
No chemical weapons in Bazrah as of six months ago. And no, it’s not the only thing I took away from the 4 page report. Another thing I took away from it is your reliance upon a report that does not conclusively prove what you continuously state. Chemical weapons are not primarily stored in large quantities and are typically armed just prior to delivery to their target. Chlorine gas is the exception, hence why barrel bombs can be deployed. But I suppose you’ll argue that Assad’s forces have never dropped them. Like any good 3D, the ability to cherry pick one small kernel of “truth” and argue it’s a thread that proves your point, is a great one. See Pizza, Comet, Podesta, Email. You’re being suckered and have lost all objectivity yet only you know the truth.
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
I doubt China will do any of that.
But we're not China. If that really don't want peace, do we really want to follow their example? Why not set a better example, one that makes more sense, one that might be attractive enough that they will follow it?
Let's stop making excuses for more war. That has only led us down, down, down into the quagmire of endless, futile war we are in.
His point is that there will always be a superpower. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
As brutal as the US has been at times for some countries... I'll take my chances with them running the block versus... oh... say Russia or China.
We're likely on a collision course with a catastrophic war event. It's shitty to think about, but it's more probable than every country laying down their arms and becoming a true global community.
I'd also like to add that the Trump experiment... no... I mean to say 'calamity'... has pushed us closer to that moment versus removing us from it.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
I doubt China will do any of that.
But we're not China. If that really don't want peace, do we really want to follow their example? Why not set a better example, one that makes more sense, one that might be attractive enough that they will follow it?
Let's stop making excuses for more war. That has only led us down, down, down into the quagmire of endless, futile war we are in.
His point is that there will always be a superpower. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
As brutal as the US has been at times for some countries... I'll take my chances with them running the block versus... oh... say Russia or China.
We're likely on a collision course with a catastrophic war event. It's shitty to think about, but it's more probable than every country laying down their arms and becoming a true global community.
I'd also like to add that the Trump experiment... no... I mean to say 'calamity'... has pushed us closer to that moment versus removing us from it.
WW3 WARNING: Boris Johnson raises ALARM on Russian REVENGE ATTACK after Syrian strikes
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
The research facility that was bombed was a cancer research facility ... for those who don't know ... cancer related medicines are part of the sanctions imposed on Syria ... we also know that the OPCW inspected the facility for the 2nd time in November 2017 and said there was no suspicious activity ...
source?
assuming you are referring to the inspection? ... lots of sources that the barzah research facility was bombed ...
here is the OPCW report on Syria ... search on barzah to find the specific statement from the OPCW
The report does not confirm what you state. In fact, the report states that the Syrian authorities weren’t completely forthcoming with answers to questions posed. See paragraph 10. Further, the report states that further inspections are required to confirm that the 25 of 27 sites remain non functional, inclusive of previously known underground facilities. Are there unknown underground facilities? Do the Russians not have chemical weapons capabilities? No wonder 3D wants you to work with him.
seriously!??? ... you read the entire 3 page document and that's what you got?
first of all - it most definitely stated what I said ... NO chemical weapons in Bazrah ... sorry to everyone it does not copy and paste well ... if you read section 11 - it clearly states there are no chemical weapons in Bazrah ...
the fact that the Syrian delegation may not have answered fully all questions is subjective on how you interpret it ... also the report states that they verified that 25 of the 27 facilities were in fact destroyed ... the conclusion clearly states it will continue to monitor the 2 remaining and underground sites ... well, they don't need to monitor 1 of the 2 because it's been blown up ...
No chemical weapons in Bazrah as of six months ago. And no, it’s not the only thing I took away from the 4 page report. Another thing I took away from it is your reliance upon a report that does not conclusively prove what you continuously state. Chemical weapons are not primarily stored in large quantities and are typically armed just prior to delivery to their target. Chlorine gas is the exception, hence why barrel bombs can be deployed. But I suppose you’ll argue that Assad’s forces have never dropped them. Like any good 3D, the ability to cherry pick one small kernel of “truth” and argue it’s a thread that proves your point, is a great one. See Pizza, Comet, Podesta, Email. You’re being suckered and have lost all objectivity yet only you know the truth.
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
soo .. no sign of weapons as of November 2017 is not good enough for you?? ... again - you have no proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons ... even general mattis admitted the US gov't has no proof but yet you do!?? ...
BTW - I don't know what derogatory term 3D is but like I said to the other guy ... it doesn't phase me ... my motivation here is strictly in the interests of the Syrian People ... you've managed over the span of several days not to ingest an iota of information or evidence I've posted ... that's actually pretty amazing to be quite honest ... so, props to you for that ...
here is a rebuttal to a BBC program that accused the "Assad Regime" of crimes ... for what it's worth BBC took down their documentary Saving Syria's Children because of the work of this investigator ...
The research facility that was bombed was a cancer research facility ... for those who don't know ... cancer related medicines are part of the sanctions imposed on Syria ... we also know that the OPCW inspected the facility for the 2nd time in November 2017 and said there was no suspicious activity ...
source?
assuming you are referring to the inspection? ... lots of sources that the barzah research facility was bombed ...
here is the OPCW report on Syria ... search on barzah to find the specific statement from the OPCW
The report does not confirm what you state. In fact, the report states that the Syrian authorities weren’t completely forthcoming with answers to questions posed. See paragraph 10. Further, the report states that further inspections are required to confirm that the 25 of 27 sites remain non functional, inclusive of previously known underground facilities. Are there unknown underground facilities? Do the Russians not have chemical weapons capabilities? No wonder 3D wants you to work with him.
seriously!??? ... you read the entire 3 page document and that's what you got?
first of all - it most definitely stated what I said ... NO chemical weapons in Bazrah ... sorry to everyone it does not copy and paste well ... if you read section 11 - it clearly states there are no chemical weapons in Bazrah ...
the fact that the Syrian delegation may not have answered fully all questions is subjective on how you interpret it ... also the report states that they verified that 25 of the 27 facilities were in fact destroyed ... the conclusion clearly states it will continue to monitor the 2 remaining and underground sites ... well, they don't need to monitor 1 of the 2 because it's been blown up ...
No chemical weapons in Bazrah as of six months ago. And no, it’s not the only thing I took away from the 4 page report. Another thing I took away from it is your reliance upon a report that does not conclusively prove what you continuously state. Chemical weapons are not primarily stored in large quantities and are typically armed just prior to delivery to their target. Chlorine gas is the exception, hence why barrel bombs can be deployed. But I suppose you’ll argue that Assad’s forces have never dropped them. Like any good 3D, the ability to cherry pick one small kernel of “truth” and argue it’s a thread that proves your point, is a great one. See Pizza, Comet, Podesta, Email. You’re being suckered and have lost all objectivity yet only you know the truth.
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
soo .. no sign of weapons as of November 2017 is not good enough for you?? ... again - you have no proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons ... even general mattis admitted the US gov't has no proof but yet you do!?? ...
BTW - I don't know what derogatory term 3D is but like I said to the other guy ... it doesn't phase me ... my motivation here is strictly in the interests of the Syrian People ... you've managed over the span of several days not to ingest an iota of information or evidence I've posted ... that's actually pretty amazing to be quite honest ... so, props to you for that ...
The fact that people disagree with you is not proof that they haven’t “digested” the information that you post. It just means that they disagree with you.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The research facility that was bombed was a cancer research facility ... for those who don't know ... cancer related medicines are part of the sanctions imposed on Syria ... we also know that the OPCW inspected the facility for the 2nd time in November 2017 and said there was no suspicious activity ...
source?
assuming you are referring to the inspection? ... lots of sources that the barzah research facility was bombed ...
here is the OPCW report on Syria ... search on barzah to find the specific statement from the OPCW
The report does not confirm what you state. In fact, the report states that the Syrian authorities weren’t completely forthcoming with answers to questions posed. See paragraph 10. Further, the report states that further inspections are required to confirm that the 25 of 27 sites remain non functional, inclusive of previously known underground facilities. Are there unknown underground facilities? Do the Russians not have chemical weapons capabilities? No wonder 3D wants you to work with him.
seriously!??? ... you read the entire 3 page document and that's what you got?
first of all - it most definitely stated what I said ... NO chemical weapons in Bazrah ... sorry to everyone it does not copy and paste well ... if you read section 11 - it clearly states there are no chemical weapons in Bazrah ...
the fact that the Syrian delegation may not have answered fully all questions is subjective on how you interpret it ... also the report states that they verified that 25 of the 27 facilities were in fact destroyed ... the conclusion clearly states it will continue to monitor the 2 remaining and underground sites ... well, they don't need to monitor 1 of the 2 because it's been blown up ...
No chemical weapons in Bazrah as of six months ago. And no, it’s not the only thing I took away from the 4 page report. Another thing I took away from it is your reliance upon a report that does not conclusively prove what you continuously state. Chemical weapons are not primarily stored in large quantities and are typically armed just prior to delivery to their target. Chlorine gas is the exception, hence why barrel bombs can be deployed. But I suppose you’ll argue that Assad’s forces have never dropped them. Like any good 3D, the ability to cherry pick one small kernel of “truth” and argue it’s a thread that proves your point, is a great one. See Pizza, Comet, Podesta, Email. You’re being suckered and have lost all objectivity yet only you know the truth.
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
soo .. no sign of weapons as of November 2017 is not good enough for you?? ... again - you have no proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons ... even general mattis admitted the US gov't has no proof but yet you do!?? ...
BTW - I don't know what derogatory term 3D is but like I said to the other guy ... it doesn't phase me ... my motivation here is strictly in the interests of the Syrian People ... you've managed over the span of several days not to ingest an iota of information or evidence I've posted ... that's actually pretty amazing to be quite honest ... so, props to you for that ...
The fact that people disagree with you is not proof that they haven’t “digested” the information that you post. It just means that they disagree with you.
uhhh ... that is obvious that they disagree with me ... my point is simply that in order to try and reach consensus on a subject there has to be back and forth about the issues at hand ... calling me a conspiracy theorist or a sucker for russian propaganda does not address the issues ... i've posted quite a few pieces showing that the current narrative in Syria may not be accurate but no one really is addressing those ... they just call my sources shit ...
I don't really care enough to hate any of them honestly. I was just trying to join in and make the thread a little bit more polemic for a while. Most people I've met from each of the 3 countries have been amazing people whose company I've really enjoyed. Having said that, there was one time that I was in London near Wembley after the football team had just been beaten and almost got killed for being from Ireland. Hmm.
I think out of all the home nations Ireland is the most popular and most beautiful country. Irish people are really some of the best souls around.. London is a rubbish dump of hollow souls . I would rather be in ireland/Scotland and wales. Beautiful places. Anyway of topic sorry . Just wanted to apologise for the English.
brixton 93
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
I doubt China will do any of that.
But we're not China. If that really don't want peace, do we really want to follow their example? Why not set a better example, one that makes more sense, one that might be attractive enough that they will follow it?
Let's stop making excuses for more war. That has only led us down, down, down into the quagmire of endless, futile war we are in.
I agree lets stop making excuses for war. People do have the power. Its gone way down the line now but i do believe the young generation are largely anti war. We need to stand up and speak out as a world!
brixton 93
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
I doubt China will do any of that.
But we're not China. If that really don't want peace, do we really want to follow their example? Why not set a better example, one that makes more sense, one that might be attractive enough that they will follow it?
Let's stop making excuses for more war. That has only led us down, down, down into the quagmire of endless, futile war we are in.
I agree lets stop making excuses for war. People do have the power. Its gone way down the line now but i do believe the young generation are largely anti war. We need to stand up and speak out as a world!
That's very encouraging to hear, Rob. For several years now, I've placed much of my hope on the younger generations. I think they generally understand that peace is their best chance for survival. They also have fewer biases than older generations like mine. They commingle with other races creeds and colors better than those who came before them. They are generally less homophobic, xenophobic and racist than older generations. They are hope personified.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Exactly and look at the protests against guns against cutting funding here for nurses and many causes. I genuinely think this new generation have the scope and exposure to speak and be seen/heard. I feel good when i speak to my children. They do not have the racist and homophobic undertones that my dad has. Its totally different. That has to produce love and understanding. My kids view on kids being gassed. Is one of utter disgust and disgrace. Whoever gassed them. I don't know. But i hsve faith in my kids generation!
brixton 93
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
The research facility that was bombed was a cancer research facility ... for those who don't know ... cancer related medicines are part of the sanctions imposed on Syria ... we also know that the OPCW inspected the facility for the 2nd time in November 2017 and said there was no suspicious activity ...
source?
assuming you are referring to the inspection? ... lots of sources that the barzah research facility was bombed ...
here is the OPCW report on Syria ... search on barzah to find the specific statement from the OPCW
The report does not confirm what you state. In fact, the report states that the Syrian authorities weren’t completely forthcoming with answers to questions posed. See paragraph 10. Further, the report states that further inspections are required to confirm that the 25 of 27 sites remain non functional, inclusive of previously known underground facilities. Are there unknown underground facilities? Do the Russians not have chemical weapons capabilities? No wonder 3D wants you to work with him.
seriously!??? ... you read the entire 3 page document and that's what you got?
first of all - it most definitely stated what I said ... NO chemical weapons in Bazrah ... sorry to everyone it does not copy and paste well ... if you read section 11 - it clearly states there are no chemical weapons in Bazrah ...
the fact that the Syrian delegation may not have answered fully all questions is subjective on how you interpret it ... also the report states that they verified that 25 of the 27 facilities were in fact destroyed ... the conclusion clearly states it will continue to monitor the 2 remaining and underground sites ... well, they don't need to monitor 1 of the 2 because it's been blown up ...
No chemical weapons in Bazrah as of six months ago. And no, it’s not the only thing I took away from the 4 page report. Another thing I took away from it is your reliance upon a report that does not conclusively prove what you continuously state. Chemical weapons are not primarily stored in large quantities and are typically armed just prior to delivery to their target. Chlorine gas is the exception, hence why barrel bombs can be deployed. But I suppose you’ll argue that Assad’s forces have never dropped them. Like any good 3D, the ability to cherry pick one small kernel of “truth” and argue it’s a thread that proves your point, is a great one. See Pizza, Comet, Podesta, Email. You’re being suckered and have lost all objectivity yet only you know the truth.
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
soo .. no sign of weapons as of November 2017 is not good enough for you?? ... again - you have no proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons ... even general mattis admitted the US gov't has no proof but yet you do!?? ...
BTW - I don't know what derogatory term 3D is but like I said to the other guy ... it doesn't phase me ... my motivation here is strictly in the interests of the Syrian People ... you've managed over the span of several days not to ingest an iota of information or evidence I've posted ... that's actually pretty amazing to be quite honest ... so, props to you for that ...
The fact that people disagree with you is not proof that they haven’t “digested” the information that you post. It just means that they disagree with you.
uhhh ... that is obvious that they disagree with me ... my point is simply that in order to try and reach consensus on a subject there has to be back and forth about the issues at hand ... calling me a conspiracy theorist or a sucker for russian propaganda does not address the issues ... i've posted quite a few pieces showing that the current narrative in Syria may not be accurate but no one really is addressing those ... they just call my sources shit ...
Isn't that exactly how you started the conversation? Sources are shit? Seems weird to complain about it from others.
I was listening to MSNBC (which I tend to dislike greatly) this morning. They were talking more about whether the US went far enough than whether the US should have done anything at all. Honestly based on the talk I was hearing it wouldn't have been far-fetched if it was on Fox News. Got me thinking...is it because the evidence is so compelling that the US had to do something, or is it the only thing the left/Right can agree on .... bombing...war.
So either the white helmets are a terrorist organization and everything is fake to get public support of bombing, or Assad is a monster using chemical weapons on families.
These are 2 very extreme situations.
I’ve read a bunch from both sides and now I know nothing more and my head hurts
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
this is just an absurd premise. do you really think if the US pulled out of the Middle East there would peace there? And as someone else mentioned if not the US would you prefer Russia or someone else being there instead of US? We have our issues for sure but let's not blame the US for every conflict around the world. Religion is far more to blame.
The research facility that was bombed was a cancer research facility ... for those who don't know ... cancer related medicines are part of the sanctions imposed on Syria ... we also know that the OPCW inspected the facility for the 2nd time in November 2017 and said there was no suspicious activity ...
source?
assuming you are referring to the inspection? ... lots of sources that the barzah research facility was bombed ...
here is the OPCW report on Syria ... search on barzah to find the specific statement from the OPCW
The report does not confirm what you state. In fact, the report states that the Syrian authorities weren’t completely forthcoming with answers to questions posed. See paragraph 10. Further, the report states that further inspections are required to confirm that the 25 of 27 sites remain non functional, inclusive of previously known underground facilities. Are there unknown underground facilities? Do the Russians not have chemical weapons capabilities? No wonder 3D wants you to work with him.
seriously!??? ... you read the entire 3 page document and that's what you got?
first of all - it most definitely stated what I said ... NO chemical weapons in Bazrah ... sorry to everyone it does not copy and paste well ... if you read section 11 - it clearly states there are no chemical weapons in Bazrah ...
the fact that the Syrian delegation may not have answered fully all questions is subjective on how you interpret it ... also the report states that they verified that 25 of the 27 facilities were in fact destroyed ... the conclusion clearly states it will continue to monitor the 2 remaining and underground sites ... well, they don't need to monitor 1 of the 2 because it's been blown up ...
No chemical weapons in Bazrah as of six months ago. And no, it’s not the only thing I took away from the 4 page report. Another thing I took away from it is your reliance upon a report that does not conclusively prove what you continuously state. Chemical weapons are not primarily stored in large quantities and are typically armed just prior to delivery to their target. Chlorine gas is the exception, hence why barrel bombs can be deployed. But I suppose you’ll argue that Assad’s forces have never dropped them. Like any good 3D, the ability to cherry pick one small kernel of “truth” and argue it’s a thread that proves your point, is a great one. See Pizza, Comet, Podesta, Email. You’re being suckered and have lost all objectivity yet only you know the truth.
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
soo .. no sign of weapons as of November 2017 is not good enough for you?? ... again - you have no proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons ... even general mattis admitted the US gov't has no proof but yet you do!?? ...
BTW - I don't know what derogatory term 3D is but like I said to the other guy ... it doesn't phase me ... my motivation here is strictly in the interests of the Syrian People ... you've managed over the span of several days not to ingest an iota of information or evidence I've posted ... that's actually pretty amazing to be quite honest ... so, props to you for that ...
The fact that people disagree with you is not proof that they haven’t “digested” the information that you post. It just means that they disagree with you.
uhhh ... that is obvious that they disagree with me ... my point is simply that in order to try and reach consensus on a subject there has to be back and forth about the issues at hand ... calling me a conspiracy theorist or a sucker for russian propaganda does not address the issues ... i've posted quite a few pieces showing that the current narrative in Syria may not be accurate but no one really is addressing those ... they just call my sources shit ...
I disagree with you and your cheerleading for Assad The Peacemaker and Putin The Savior.... and your sources are shit... your hero is a documented blogger for RT.... you realize she gets paid to do that right?
you bash "western media" and suck down Russian propaganda like its the gospel...
I don't think anyone in this thread is making excuses for war, nor are we wanting war. It's not this simple decision all the time though where we just ignore what is happening anywhere else that isn't the USA. I also am not sure what we're accomplishing with the strikes in Syria. It seems we have gone half-assed far too many times because there isn't a clear plan or objective. Randomly striking what are believed to be chemical sites after broadcasting action days earlier is just stupid. When has military action against a country or group ever resulted in positive (for lack of better words) change when the people and government of that country have not directly been involved or a part of making the change the external military is trying to enact? There is obviously a problem, but the US has unfortunately been a part of that problem for years. The bombing and strategic missile strikes aren't going to fix Syria's problems, but I also don't think it is completely clear that their impact is negative. It seems like a zero sum outcome.
I know I don't have the extensive knowledge or understanding of the issues in Syria like some on here do, but I have not been convinced by the claims that Assad is a good guy in all of this. I have not seen any support for the claims of his humanitarianism from any credible journalists. If even some of what is being reported by the underground journalists and supposed freelancers was accurate, there would be a lot more support and evidence of their claims among reputable news sources. I think back to the Iraq war and the WMD claims and several journalists were challenging that story. What was later found is that there were no WMD's but piles and piles of chemical weapons all over Iraq that looked like they had been buried back during the first Gulf War. Again, the US had a chance to at least clear up that mess, but ultimately didn't finish the job and possibly allowed some of the chemical weapons to fall in to the hands of ISIS, which is what brings me back to my initial point. What the hell are doing with Syria? We pretend not to get involved, but then decide to strike when it suits our interests to be on moral high ground as a humanitarian effort without the humanitarianism.
Anyway, I found the below article an interesting take after last year's strikes.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
this is just an absurd premise. do you really think if the US pulled out of the Middle East there would peace there? And as someone else mentioned if not the US would you prefer Russia or someone else being there instead of US? We have our issues for sure but let's not blame the US for every conflict around the world. Religion is far more to blame.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
this is just an absurd premise. do you really think if the US pulled out of the Middle East there would peace there? And as someone else mentioned if not the US would you prefer Russia or someone else being there instead of US? We have our issues for sure but let's not blame the US for every conflict around the world. Religion is far more to blame.
So now your peacemakers...
No. That wasn't what he said. You're painting a black and white picture that didn't exist.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
this is just an absurd premise. do you really think if the US pulled out of the Middle East there would peace there? And as someone else mentioned if not the US would you prefer Russia or someone else being there instead of US? We have our issues for sure but let's not blame the US for every conflict around the world. Religion is far more to blame.
Exactly right. If the US jumps into a situation like this, it’s “why are they sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong?” If the US sits back and watches, it’s “why isn’t the US doing something to help the situation?” Typical case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
this is just an absurd premise. do you really think if the US pulled out of the Middle East there would peace there? And as someone else mentioned if not the US would you prefer Russia or someone else being there instead of US? We have our issues for sure but let's not blame the US for every conflict around the world. Religion is far more to blame.
the sad hard truth is that if America went isolationist, stopped being the world police, closed all foreign bases, and brought all of the equipment and people home.... this world would have conflict and problems that make todays world look like a wonderland
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
No. WWII could have been avoided. Here's an article that explains that:
"Woodrow
Wilson’s call to create the League of Nations and its epic failure is a
great allegory to explain why WWII exploded. Negligence and
indifference from the States involved in the international scene were
what prompted turmoil in Europe. A harsh Treaty of Versailles that sunk
Germany into debt and economic and social crisis was only allowed by a
bunch of countries that weren’t looking forward the future of Europe; or
even the world. The policy of isolationism taken by the United States
at the end of the war, which emphasized on not intervening in European
affairs any more, prevented the United States from joining the League on
Nations, weakening it considerably and leading it to its dissolution.
With a strong punishment, and no way nations could cooperate as a whole
(the League of Nations) the battleground was set for a greater conflict.
As Germany sunk in crisis, other countries started recovering
from the wounds of war. This gave Germany an image of an underdeveloped
country, or even worse, of a criminal receiving its punishment. Being
seen as the enemy, and also being helpless, drove Germany to seek a
quick turn table. The conditions created by the International community
made the Nazi party so appealing to people. Let’s consider how German
society felt after being named the responsible for the worst war ever.
If someone told them that Germany is great and shouldn’t be treated as a
criminal, they would believe him or her immediately. A nationalistic
feeling brewed into a chauvinism that not only praised German race but
also scorned any other race. This is why Hitler made it to power. If
anyone named Hitler the real problem that caused the WWII, still the
International Community’s indifference and indolence are the
responsibles. Who else created the conditions for Hitler to rise? It
isn’t Germany who put those harsh sanctions to itself.
Yes, everyone who graduated high school knows the treaty that ended WWI caused WWII. But by the mid-late 30’s there was no stopping it at that point. and plenty of countries go into economic collapse without electing one of the most racist and evil people in history. The treaty is only part to blame. And none of that changes the fact that once hitler took power, that war was justified for the allies.
The bottom line, Mace, is you can look to history for reasons to continue warring or you can look to the future for ways to make peace. I choose peace.
I agree Brian, maybe if the country with the largest military actually started closing their foreign basis and scaled back military spending a little and lead by example...
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
this is just an absurd premise. do you really think if the US pulled out of the Middle East there would peace there? And as someone else mentioned if not the US would you prefer Russia or someone else being there instead of US? We have our issues for sure but let's not blame the US for every conflict around the world. Religion is far more to blame.
Exactly right. If the US jumps into a situation like this, it’s “why are they sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong?” If the US sits back and watches, it’s “why isn’t the US doing something to help the situation?” Typical case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
the Syria issue demonstrates this perfectly. I can't believe people are condemning the US for this. They used chemical weapons on their own people (again). How can we stand by and do nothing? I don't have the answers on what needs to be done and I dislike Trump as much as anyone, but we cannot let that happen in today's world. A response was needed.
Comments
It's obvious from the last 70 years or so that getting involved/creating more war does not bring peace...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Let's stop making excuses for more war. That has only led us down, down, down into the quagmire of endless, futile war we are in.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Sattilite imagery of before and after shows at least two of the complexes as being in agricultural areas and not near dense populations. The US and their allies have weapons systems to destroy chemical weapons with minimized risks to nearby populations. Do I think any of this is right or moral? No. Does that make Assad and Putin nice guys without an agenda? Absolutely not. I suppose you believe the chechens leveled that apartment building in Moscow a decade or so ago? Right?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
His point is that there will always be a superpower. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
As brutal as the US has been at times for some countries... I'll take my chances with them running the block versus... oh... say Russia or China.
We're likely on a collision course with a catastrophic war event. It's shitty to think about, but it's more probable than every country laying down their arms and becoming a true global community.
I'd also like to add that the Trump experiment... no... I mean to say 'calamity'... has pushed us closer to that moment versus removing us from it.
Expect the worst, hope for the best.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/946497/russia-latest-syria-cyber-war-uk-vladimir-putin
Syria attack: Will Russia launch CYBER warfare? Expert says it is IMMINENT
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/946302/World-War-3-Boris-Johnson-Russian-threat-cyberattacks-Syrian-strikes/amp
WW3 WARNING: Boris Johnson raises ALARM on Russian REVENGE ATTACK after Syrian strikes
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
here is Bazrah's proximity to population ...
BTW - I don't know what derogatory term 3D is but like I said to the other guy ... it doesn't phase me ... my motivation here is strictly in the interests of the Syrian People ... you've managed over the span of several days not to ingest an iota of information or evidence I've posted ... that's actually pretty amazing to be quite honest ... so, props to you for that ...
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
I was listening to MSNBC (which I tend to dislike greatly) this morning. They were talking more about whether the US went far enough than whether the US should have done anything at all. Honestly based on the talk I was hearing it wouldn't have been far-fetched if it was on Fox News. Got me thinking...is it because the evidence is so compelling that the US had to do something, or is it the only thing the left/Right can agree on .... bombing...war.
Polaris, I feel like this was posted for you! A nice summary of the PR campaign.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-15/take-red-pill-history-syrian-false-flags-exposed
Its just a movie none of the child actors and actresses depicted were actually hurt!
These are 2 very extreme situations.
I’ve read a bunch from both sides and now I know nothing more and my head hurts
I disagree with you and your cheerleading for Assad The Peacemaker and Putin The Savior.... and your sources are shit... your hero is a documented blogger for RT.... you realize she gets paid to do that right?
you bash "western media" and suck down Russian propaganda like its the gospel...
its amazing really
I know I don't have the extensive knowledge or understanding of the issues in Syria like some on here do, but I have not been convinced by the claims that Assad is a good guy in all of this. I have not seen any support for the claims of his humanitarianism from any credible journalists. If even some of what is being reported by the underground journalists and supposed freelancers was accurate, there would be a lot more support and evidence of their claims among reputable news sources. I think back to the Iraq war and the WMD claims and several journalists were challenging that story. What was later found is that there were no WMD's but piles and piles of chemical weapons all over Iraq that looked like they had been buried back during the first Gulf War. Again, the US had a chance to at least clear up that mess, but ultimately didn't finish the job and possibly allowed some of the chemical weapons to fall in to the hands of ISIS, which is what brings me back to my initial point. What the hell are doing with Syria? We pretend not to get involved, but then decide to strike when it suits our interests to be on moral high ground as a humanitarian effort without the humanitarianism.
Anyway, I found the below article an interesting take after last year's strikes.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/north-africa-west-asia/shilpa-jindia/syria-US-war-left-revolution
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Chemical Weapons Experts Blocked From Site of Syria Attack, Officials Say - The New York Times https://apple.news/ATnPy0pV9RbWsppHReBufeA
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
the sad hard truth is that if America went isolationist, stopped being the world police, closed all foreign bases, and brought all of the equipment and people home.... this world would have conflict and problems that make todays world look like a wonderland
that's coming from a pretty staunch progressive