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
that's coming from a pretty staunch progressive
I don't equate ceasing to be world police with being isolated. There's more to interacting with other parts of the world than enforcement, war, politics, etc. There's also all the richness of culture- music, art, sports, literature, and so forth.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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
that's coming from a pretty staunch progressive
I don't equate ceasing to be world police with being isolated. There's more to interacting with other parts of the world than enforcement, war, politics, etc. There's also all the richness of culture- music, art, sports, literature, and so forth.
3D d’ing on the Comey interview and Team Trump Treason’s almost immediate rescinding of Nikkki Styxxx’s Russian sanctions. Dots got you down? Puppy abounds!
What should be done with a regime that gasses people? I certainly don't like everything about Trump. But it seems like the hatred for Trump is greater than the hatred for some of these terrible & brutal regimes. I can certainly understand why people don't like Trump, I don't understand the level of hatred. Do we just let the gassing continue? Turn a blind eye? Let it go unchecked what? Trump doesn't strike me as a trigger happy guy. Trump has stated many times, that we won't be nation building anymore like Bush tried in Iraq that didn't work out to well. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to discuss. I disagreed with Obama on a lot of things, not everything, & I never hated the guy.
I just find it interesting that they could bomb the living shit out of those people, day in and day out, causing an ongoing humanitarian crisis for a really long time now, and the US, Britain, and France weren't doing anything until chemical weapons are used, as though all the other weapons used before are child's play. I don't think it could be any more obvious that they were just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for another chemical attack, so that they had an excuse to go in there that the naive public would accept. I just can't believe there are still people who think this kind of military strike has anything to do with helping people or doing the right thing or anything like that.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
3D d’ing on the Comey interview and Team Trump Treason’s almost immediate rescinding of Nikkki Styxxx’s Russian sanctions. Dots got you down? Puppy abounds!
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
that's coming from a pretty staunch progressive
I don't equate ceasing to be world police with being isolated. There's more to interacting with other parts of the world than enforcement, war, politics, etc. There's also all the richness of culture- music, art, sports, literature, and so forth.
I understand all of that... America utilizes quite a bit of "soft power" internationally, or at least used to...
People think the world was peaceful before America became a superpower?
The truth is the world has been the most peaceful in modern history since the end of WW2 with America leading and helping secure and maintain global cooperation and progress like has never been seen... these are facts that are real and tangible... what scares me are the people like Trump and Brexit voters who dont understand that and are willing to blow up that longstanding order...
what do you think would happen if America pulled all military out of Asia? Or maybe withdraw from NATO and the European continent? It wouldn't be pretty... if Canada bordered Russia the canadians on here would likely sign a much different tune when it comes to Team America: World Police
Now of course America has made many mistakes along the way that I dont excuse... some horrific... some inexcusable... but I think progressives like myself have far too a simplistic view of Americas role in global geopolitics, especially military presence and capability
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
3D d’ing on the Comey interview and Team Trump Treason’s almost immediate rescinding of Nikkki Styxxx’s Russian sanctions. Dots got you down? Puppy abounds!
LANDLORD: Still no eviction notice?
Most evictions wind their way through housing court and are not instantaneous proceedings. Sometimes, you have to involve the cops and take them out kicking and screaming, after a bright orange notice has been tacked to the front door and remained visible and in place for 30 days. All in good time comrade, all in good time.
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
that's coming from a pretty staunch progressive
I don't equate ceasing to be world police with being isolated. There's more to interacting with other parts of the world than enforcement, war, politics, etc. There's also all the richness of culture- music, art, sports, literature, and so forth.
I understand all of that... America utilizes quite a bit of "soft power" internationally, or at least used to...
People think the world was peaceful before America became a superpower?
The truth is the world has been the most peaceful in modern history since the end of WW2 with America leading and helping secure and maintain global cooperation and progress like has never been seen... these are facts that are real and tangible... what scares me are the people like Trump and Brexit voters who dont understand that and are willing to blow up that longstanding order...
what do you think would happen if America pulled all military out of Asia? Or maybe withdraw from NATO and the European continent? It wouldn't be pretty... if Canada bordered Russia the canadians on here would likely sign a much different tune when it comes to Team America: World Police
Now of course America has made many mistakes along the way that I dont excuse... some horrific... some inexcusable... but I think progressives like myself have far too a simplistic view of Americas role in global geopolitics, especially military presence and capability
I'm a post WWII boomer born in 1951. Every single day of my life has been lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation and I cannot think of many times during my lifetime that war has not raged somewhere on this planet. If, indeed, it is a fact that this my entire lifetime has been the most peaceful in modern history... well, what can I say? That's a sad and horrific thought.
As far as pulling out of Asia and Europe, it's hard to say what would happen but I regardless, I would be in favor of doing so.
Look, I appreciate what you are saying and we generally agree on most subjects and I recognize that my views are off the grid but the way I see it, we are right on the brink. We are so fucking close to blowing our collective selves and many, many other species off the face of the earth my view point now is, what the hell do we have to loose? No more war, no more fighting, no more hate. I'm with Jimi:
"Instead of marching down the street with, ah, what is it? M1's, M16's? all these rifles...[mumbles]... why don't we march down the street with a little gui-tar, things like this, yeahhh..."
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I am very much anti-war... I am anti-nukes... I am anti-being an asshole in general...
but reality is a bitch brother... ask someone in Crimea... or Tibet... or that kid that got run over by the Chinese tank just for protesting
I hear you- yes it is a bitch- and those of us in wealthy nations are damn lucky and I think we do need to speak out and give support to the down-trodden. But I believe more will be accomplished by giving aid to refugees, placing embargoes on regimes that are harming innocent people, not by supplying weapons to those awful regimes (we've done that on numerous occasions) or starting more war. I just don't see where warring has made a positive difference.
It seems to me, first world, wealthy countries can do more to help poor regions like Tibet with tourism and cultural exchange rather than war.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
please people ... there is no proof anywhere that Assad used chemical weapons on his people now nor previously ... i just hope that when the truth actually comes out - people will revisit their viewpoints and the narrative they've been told ... remember general mattis himself said they don't actually have any proof or evidence ...
if people are truly anti-war ... i implore them to discover the atrocities that are occurring in Libya and Yemen now ... western nations are arming Saudi as they wage what is nothing less than a genocide ... if you don't want to be open to a different narrative in Syria - at least ask yourself how we can support Saudi Arabia as they rein terror on Yemen ...
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
I am feeling the same way...
So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
please people ... there is no proof anywhere that Assad used chemical weapons on his people now nor previously ... i just hope that when the truth actually comes out - people will revisit their viewpoints and the narrative they've been told ... remember general mattis himself said they don't actually have any proof or evidence ...
Why is it that Syria and Russia have prevented the OPCW from inspecting the site where the chemical attack occurred in Douma? They have been there since Saturday, but have been refused access by Syria and Russia who took over the area from the rebels. This coming from the New York Times.
please people ... there is no proof anywhere that Assad used chemical weapons on his people now nor previously ... i just hope that when the truth actually comes out - people will revisit their viewpoints and the narrative they've been told ... remember general mattis himself said they don't actually have any proof or evidence ...
Took 30 seconds to find it... just one example of several times they've found the Syrian government, as well as ISIS, guilty of using chemicals...
Facts.
Agreed. There is a plethora of supporting data out there. If this is a conspiracy, like some have suggested, it is one hell of a good one with many hands in the pot. Too far fetched for me to believe that is possible.
Why is it that Syria and Russia have prevented the OPCW from inspecting the site where the chemical attack occurred in Douma? They have been there since Saturday, but have been refused access by Syria and Russia who took over the area from the rebels. This coming from the New York Times.
State declaration: On September 20, 2013, Syria submitted a declaration of its chemical weapons and facilities to the OPCW after years of denying the program's existence. The OPCW announced that the entirety of Syria’s declared stockpile of 1,308 metric tons of sulfur mustard agent and precursor chemicals had been destroyed in January 2016. However, reports continue to surface of chemical weapon use in Syria, raising questions about the accuracy of its initial declaration.
Allegations: Syria had an extensive program producing a variety of agents, including nerve agents such as sarin and VX, and blistering agents, according to governments and media sources. There were also some allegations of deployed CWs on SCUD missiles. Several UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) reports have found that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria, including in April 2014, March 2015, March 2016, and April 2017 and that the Islamic State was responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria in August 2015 and September 2016.
Several UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) reports have found that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria, including in April 2014, March 2015, March 2016, and April 2017
Looks like Assad The Peacemaker likes to gas people in the Spring...
please people ... there is no proof anywhere that Assad used chemical weapons on his people now nor previously ... i just hope that when the truth actually comes out - people will revisit their viewpoints and the narrative they've been told ... remember general mattis himself said they don't actually have any proof or evidence ...
Took 30 seconds to find it... just one example of several times they've found the Syrian government, as well as ISIS, guilty of using chemicals...
Facts.
the problem here is that the OPCW doesn't investigate blame ... so, the UN sent a team to investigate ... the problem with their report is that ultimately they are reliant on unreliable sources ... and their report was widely contradictory ... they actually didn't visit the site of the attack and actually stated that the crater which the alleged bomb dropped was filled in and unreliable yet they use it as the primary proof that the bomb must've had dropped from above ... also, their primary source of information were groups like the white helmets ... not reliable ...
Why is it that Syria and Russia have prevented the OPCW from inspecting the site where the chemical attack occurred in Douma? They have been there since Saturday, but have been refused access by Syria and Russia who took over the area from the rebels. This coming from the New York Times.
not exactly sure but the secondary team of the OPCW arrived and there are concerns of some of the members ... speculate either american or british members ... also, there are some security concerns with israel bombing syria ... also, the doctors who treated the patients are being interviewed in damascus by the OPCW ... so, they haven't gotten to the site but they are investigating still ...
it's definitely not related to security in the area as several journalists have visited douma and have all reported the same thing ... no chemical attack ...
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,309
My latest thinking on Syria is this: We don't really know what's going on. When the strikes happened, most of us had this feeling of a sickening sense of doom. I did for awhile. Here comes World War III. We're all going to get nuked. We're all going to die. (Well, OK, that part is true.) And then we start getting these reports that say, no, this was just for show. Or, yay, we showed them! Lots of people in Syria were killed. Or, no, not even Russian soldiers were killed. Chemical weapons development plants were destroyed. Or, no, important or critical sites were hit. Blah blah blah. Who really knows?
The other thing we hear a lot is how terrible Trump was (or how heroic Trump was) for sending those missiles into Syria. Really? I don't think so. I really don't think the president had much to do with this. Not that I'm a fan, of course, but I really really doubt it was his call.
What so we know? Squat.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
it's definitely not related to security in the area as several journalists have visited douma and have all reported the same thing ... no chemical attack ...
2 questions in regards to this. First, if there was no chemical attack, what caused roughly 70 civilians to die? I’m guessing the response will be it was staged like a Hollywood production but I don’t feel like digging through the entire chain of posts. Second, what makes journalists in the area qualified to say whether or not a chemical attack occurred? Wouldn’t that be better left for OPCW, who has not been given permission to do their job?
My latest thinking on Syria is this: We don't really know what's going on. When the strikes happened, most of us had this feeling of a sickening sense of doom. I did for awhile. Here comes World War III. We're all going to get nuked. We're all going to die. (Well, OK, that part is true.) And then we start getting these reports that say, no, this was just for show. Or, yay, we showed them! Lots of people in Syria were killed. Or, no, not even Russian soldiers were killed. Chemical weapons development plants were destroyed. Or, no, important or critical sites were hit. Blah blah blah. Who really knows?
The other thing we hear a lot is how terrible Trump was (or how heroic Trump was) for sending those missiles into Syria. Really? I don't think so. I really don't think the president had much to do with this. Not that I'm a fan, of course, but I really really doubt it was his call.
What so we know? Squat.
It was his call. The President either signs off on such an attack or the attack doesn't happen. Was it his idea? Different story and highly doubtful. But it was his call.
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
here you go...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
just find it interesting that they could bomb the living shit out of those people, day in and day out, causing an ongoing humanitarian crisis for a really long time now, and the US, Britain, and France weren't doing anything until chemical weapons are used, as though all the other weapons used before are child's play. I don't think it could be any more obvious that they were just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for another chemical attack, so that they had an excuse to go in there that the naive public would accept. I just can't believe there are still people who think this kind of military strike has anything to do with helping people or doing the right thing or anything like that.
People think the world was peaceful before America became a superpower?
The truth is the world has been the most peaceful in modern history since the end of WW2 with America leading and helping secure and maintain global cooperation and progress like has never been seen... these are facts that are real and tangible... what scares me are the people like Trump and Brexit voters who dont understand that and are willing to blow up that longstanding order...
what do you think would happen if America pulled all military out of Asia? Or maybe withdraw from NATO and the European continent? It wouldn't be pretty... if Canada bordered Russia the canadians on here would likely sign a much different tune when it comes to Team America: World Police
Now of course America has made many mistakes along the way that I dont excuse... some horrific... some inexcusable... but I think progressives like myself have far too a simplistic view of Americas role in global geopolitics, especially military presence and capability
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
As far as pulling out of Asia and Europe, it's hard to say what would happen but I regardless, I would be in favor of doing so.
Look, I appreciate what you are saying and we generally agree on most subjects and I recognize that my views are off the grid but the way I see it, we are right on the brink. We are so fucking close to blowing our collective selves and many, many other species off the face of the earth my view point now is, what the hell do we have to loose? No more war, no more fighting, no more hate. I'm with Jimi:
"Instead of marching down the street with, ah, what is it? M1's, M16's? all these rifles...[mumbles]... why don't we march down the street with a little gui-tar, things like this, yeahhh..."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I am very much anti-war... I am anti-nukes... I am anti-being an asshole in general...
but reality is a bitch brother... ask someone in Crimea... or Tibet... or that kid that got run over by the Chinese tank just for protesting
It seems to me, first world, wealthy countries can do more to help poor regions like Tibet with tourism and cultural exchange rather than war.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
2nd paragraph
Took 30 seconds to find it... just one example of several times they've found the Syrian government, as well as ISIS, guilty of using chemicals...
Facts.
Chemical Weapons
State declaration: On September 20, 2013, Syria submitted a declaration of its chemical weapons and facilities to the OPCW after years of denying the program's existence. The OPCW announced that the entirety of Syria’s declared stockpile of 1,308 metric tons of sulfur mustard agent and precursor chemicals had been destroyed in January 2016. However, reports continue to surface of chemical weapon use in Syria, raising questions about the accuracy of its initial declaration.
Allegations: Syria had an extensive program producing a variety of agents, including nerve agents such as sarin and VX, and blistering agents, according to governments and media sources. There were also some allegations of deployed CWs on SCUD missiles. Several UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) reports have found that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria, including in April 2014, March 2015, March 2016, and April 2017 and that the Islamic State was responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria in August 2015 and September 2016.
https://www.alternet.org/print/grayzone-project/what-really-happened-khan-sheikhoun
https://www.investigaction.net/en/wmd-in-syria-just-like-iraq-in-2003-contradictions-in-the-unopcw-report-on-khan-shaykhun/
https://www.rootclaim.com/claims/what-caused-the-chemical-calamity-in-khan-sheikhoun-on-april-4-2017-18448
i know you're not gonna like the source but read it
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The other thing we hear a lot is how terrible Trump was (or how heroic Trump was) for sending those missiles into Syria. Really? I don't think so. I really don't think the president had much to do with this. Not that I'm a fan, of course, but I really really doubt it was his call.
What so we know? Squat.
-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 -
"...I changed by not changing at all..."