|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Aug 30, 2013 6:41:14 GMT -5
....Moving to Canada Of course it Will be WW3, whats really bad is the chemical weapons and nuclear bombs. Now a Country can be destroyed in a matter of minutes! With China and Russia both...US doesn't stand a ING chance! For every 1 U.S troop there's 3 Chinese! Not to mention their technology and warfare intelligence. This is exactly how the government wants it! Hell they're safe, WE'RE NOT! Prepare for higher gas prices and food along with EVERYTHING eles, then in the coming years there WILL be a shortage in food,water,gas and everyday commodities. PREPARE TO LEAVE YOUR PAST LIFE'S BEHIND...PREPARE TO DIE!!!Paranoid much?
|
|
|
Post by deskjet on Aug 30, 2013 7:30:38 GMT -5
were all dead
|
|
|
Post by YES! YES! YES! on Aug 30, 2013 7:52:19 GMT -5
I'LL ALWAYS LOVE YOU MADI... To soon?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 15:39:31 GMT -5
So we should be allowed to bully other countries because we are strong? That doesn't make us good guys. That's not what I said/meant. But it's what you seemed to allude to. Saying a country won't dare go up against us because we are strong. That's bullying. Going around to different places, imposing our will and threatening others with how powerful we are if they dare respond to our use of force. Love how Obama can act disgusted about attacks perpetrated by a government on their own citizens "including children." As if he hasn't authorized drone strikes that killed Americans and children from other countries.
|
|
Jacob
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: May 15, 2006 14:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 16,577
|
Post by Jacob on Aug 30, 2013 15:47:34 GMT -5
That's not what I said/meant. But it's what you seemed to allude to. Saying a country won't dare go up against us because we are strong. That's bullying. Going around to different places, imposing our will and threatening others with how powerful we are if they dare respond to our use of force. Love how Obama can act disgusted about attacks perpetrated by a government on their own citizens "including children." As if he hasn't authorized drone strikes that killed Americans and children from other countries. However you take it, if Russia did strike, do you think Obama would sit back and not retaliate? That's the point I was trying to get across. I feel the whole situation is almost a bullying tactic from both America and the UK. 'If you don't do this, we'll do this ect'. It's been said before and look at the mess that was created because of it. Anyway, I agree with you on Obama. I'm not saying there needs to be military action, but we do need to send some humanitarian aid in.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 15:50:23 GMT -5
But it's what you seemed to allude to. Saying a country won't dare go up against us because we are strong. That's bullying. Going around to different places, imposing our will and threatening others with how powerful we are if they dare respond to our use of force. Love how Obama can act disgusted about attacks perpetrated by a government on their own citizens "including children." As if he hasn't authorized drone strikes that killed Americans and children from other countries. However you take it, if Russia did strike, do you think Obama would sit back and not retaliate? That's the point I was trying to get across. I feel the whole situation is almost a bullying tactic from both America and the UK. 'If you don't do this, we'll do this ect'. It's been said before and look at the mess that was created because of it. Anyway, I agree with you on Obama. I'm not saying there needs to be military action, but we do need to send some humanitarian aid in. Of course he'd do something but it'd be his fault that Russia attacked. We've been sending them aid. $1 billion in total.
|
|
Jacob
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: May 15, 2006 14:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 16,577
|
Post by Jacob on Aug 30, 2013 15:54:26 GMT -5
However you take it, if Russia did strike, do you think Obama would sit back and not retaliate? That's the point I was trying to get across. I feel the whole situation is almost a bullying tactic from both America and the UK. 'If you don't do this, we'll do this ect'. It's been said before and look at the mess that was created because of it. Anyway, I agree with you on Obama. I'm not saying there needs to be military action, but we do need to send some humanitarian aid in. Of course he'd do something but it'd be his fault that Russia attacked. We've been sending them aid. $1 billion in total. I know, but we needs boots on the ground. There are still people stuck in parts of Syria who need liberating. We could go on forever about whats right and whats wrong, I just hope that whatever happens is swift with minimal casualties to the locals.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 15:55:01 GMT -5
But it's what you seemed to allude to. Saying a country won't dare go up against us because we are strong. That's bullying. Going around to different places, imposing our will and threatening others with how powerful we are if they dare respond to our use of force. Love how Obama can act disgusted about attacks perpetrated by a government on their own citizens "including children." As if he hasn't authorized drone strikes that killed Americans and children from other countries. However you take it, if Russia did strike, do you think Obama would sit back and not retaliate? That's the point I was trying to get across. I feel the whole situation is almost a bullying tactic from both America and the UK. 'If you don't do this, we'll do this ect'. It's been said before and look at the mess that was created because of it. Anyway, I agree with you on Obama. I'm not saying there needs to be military action, but we do need to send some humanitarian aid in. Who are we bullying? We've said we won't intervene.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 15:56:47 GMT -5
Also, I think UN Peacekeeping is a good solution here. Protect the innocent, don't take sides, will likely have universal support. Get it done.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 15:57:05 GMT -5
I know, but we needs boots on the ground. There are still people stuck in parts of Syria who need liberating. We could go on forever about whats right and whats wrong, I just hope that whatever happens is swift with minimal casualties to the locals. There are people all around the world who "need liberating" but we don't go in every country and help them.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 15:59:48 GMT -5
Also, I think UN Peacekeeping is a good solution here. Protect the innocent, don't take sides, will likely have universal support. Get it done. They were in Syria last year. I doubt anything will change if they go.
|
|
Jacob
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: May 15, 2006 14:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 16,577
|
Post by Jacob on Aug 30, 2013 16:03:06 GMT -5
I know, but we needs boots on the ground. There are still people stuck in parts of Syria who need liberating. We could go on forever about whats right and whats wrong, I just hope that whatever happens is swift with minimal casualties to the locals. There are people all around the world who "need liberating" but we don't go in every country and help them. No but not every country gasses 1,200+ of their OWN people. Please don't take it that I'm arguing with you, I'm really not!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 16:03:08 GMT -5
Also, I think UN Peacekeeping is a good solution here. Protect the innocent, don't take sides, will likely have universal support. Get it done. They were in Syria last year. I doubt anything will change if they go. They could be used to protect those who can't help/protect themselves. That can make all the difference to thousands.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 16:10:12 GMT -5
There are people all around the world who "need liberating" but we don't go in every country and help them. No but not every country gasses 1,200+ of their OWN people. Please don't take it that I'm arguing with you, I'm really not! nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/cia-files-us-aided-iraq-with-iran-gas-attacks.htmlI know you're not arguing. I'm just saying we (the US) does terrible things like the above and then want to punish those who also do bad things but only if they aren't allies.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 16:11:46 GMT -5
They were in Syria last year. I doubt anything will change if they go. They could be used to protect those who can't help/protect themselves. That can make all the difference to thousands. We are going to go in circles here but then why don't we send peacekeepers to every country where people need protection? Send them into Iran, Uganda and elsewhere to protect gay people. Send them into countries where female victims of rape are punished for it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 16:15:00 GMT -5
They could be used to protect those who can't help/protect themselves. That can make all the difference to thousands. We are going to go in circles here but then why don't we send peacekeepers to every country where people need protection? Send them into Iran, Uganda and elsewhere to protect gay people. Send them into countries where female victims of rape are punished for it. Because manpower for peacekeeping is a finite resource. If it was infinite we would. But it isn't, so we have to prioritise, and Syria is one of the highest priorities atm due to the violence and chemical weapons.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 16:18:25 GMT -5
We are going to go in circles here but then why don't we send peacekeepers to every country where people need protection? Send them into Iran, Uganda and elsewhere to protect gay people. Send them into countries where female victims of rape are punished for it. Because manpower for peacekeeping is a finite resource. If it was infinite we would. But it isn't, so we have to prioritise, and Syria is one of the highest priorities atm due to the violence and chemical weapons. I'm sure those people being killed will be glad to hear that they aren't a high priority. Countries kill the UN peacekeepers so it's not like they are really living up to their name. Just look at the past few months in the Sudan and the Congo.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Aug 30, 2013 16:41:52 GMT -5
Because manpower for peacekeeping is a finite resource. If it was infinite we would. But it isn't, so we have to prioritise, and Syria is one of the highest priorities atm due to the violence and chemical weapons. I'm sure those people being killed will be glad to hear that they aren't a high priority. Countries kill the UN peacekeepers so it's not like they are really living up to their name. Just look at the past few months in the Sudan and the Congo. Ok, its not fair to say that; it sucks that anyone has to die but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this situation. Better to save 1000 lives than 500 or none at all. If they consistently kill peacekeepers that is reasonable cause for NATO intervention I suppose, which could be a deterrent to killing them. However, if the Syrians are too busy fighting each other they're unlikely to waste resources killing peacekeepers who are looking after people who aren't directly involving themselves in the conflict.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 31, 2024 18:17:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 16:46:32 GMT -5
Half of the argument on this thread amounts to:
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 30, 2013 16:50:51 GMT -5
I'm sure those people being killed will be glad to hear that they aren't a high priority. Countries kill the UN peacekeepers so it's not like they are really living up to their name. Just look at the past few months in the Sudan and the Congo. Ok, its not fair to say that; it sucks that anyone has to die but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this situation. Better to save 1000 lives than 500 or none at all. If they consistently kill peacekeepers that is reasonable cause for NATO intervention I suppose, which could be a deterrent to killing them. However, if the Syrians are too busy fighting each other they're unlikely to waste resources killing peacekeepers who are looking after people who aren't directly involving themselves in the conflict. I just don't see how we can justify saving one group over another. Because one is being killed by poison rather than being rounded up and executed? And NATO is overwhelmingly US forces. We account for 40% of NATO forces. So either way we'd have to get involved.
|
|