Syria

[Noket (OP)]

Can one of you foo's explain that to me? I'm too busy worrying about school to think about what our government (USA) should be doing. That's their job, after all ...

[JANUARYJONES]

There have been chemical attacks in Syria.
And so Obama wants to launch a military attack.
Russia proposed that Syria (They're allies) give up their chemical weapons which I think they agreed to.

I've read in places that Obama wants to arm Syrian rebels which has Americans shitting themselves and posting disgusting gore of them beheading people and posing with the heads on my Facebook wall.

I'm not super positive but that's what I read in articles.

[Witchdoctor1]

Ok. Civil war in Syria. Started out as people -vs- government. Now Islamic terror organizations -vs- government, and *supposedly* the government used nerve agents on its own population. The US has *evidence* that they really aren't showing to anyone, and says that it is their *duty* to respond to said attacks. Because there is little evidence proving who used them, and only some evidence that they were used at all, NO OTHER NATION IN THE UN wants to partake in attacks on the Syrian govt, IN ADDITION TO the fact that any strikes against the government of Syria would aid terrorism. There are many little side-dramas involving Russia, China, the US, France and England, but none of them are really important, kinda like offshoots of the same soap opera.

The long and short of it is this: March 2003 is repeating itself, just remove Bush and Iraq and insert Obama and Syria.

[Witchdoctor1]

There have been chemical attacks in Syria.
And so Obama wants to launch a military attack.
Russia proposed that Syria (They're allies) give up their chemical weapons which I think they agreed to.

I've read in places that Obama wants to arm Syrian rebels which has Americans shitting themselves and posting disgusting gore of them beheading people and posing with the heads on my Facebook wall.

I'm not super positive but that's what I read in articles.

The US has already armed the rebels, BUT now most of the rebels are Islamic terrorists that are no longer just fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad, but also any non-Islamic religious minority, gays, those that belong to differing sects of Islam than they, communists, pretty much anyone who is not a hard line Islamic fascist. And the government of the US is helping these people, which include Al-Qaeda, amongst others. Russia is playing the level-headed ones here and am glad that they can counter rampant American foreign policy.

[JANUARYJONES]

just remove Bush and Iraq and insert Obama and Syria.

/thread

[Fuzzy_Yeti_69]

Looks like Obama brought change in the way of a new war!

[Airbongo]

[Hogz]

Theres "Evidence" that the rebels started the chemical attack to make more people rebel against the Syrian government and there was a , in which a couple of kids payed or told to randomly flinch and fake that they cant breath again to make more people rebel

[Joshtimasprime]

Wouldn't conspiracy Keanu be a better choice?

[SirLogiC]

I don't think anyone really knows who used the chemical weapons, and if they do they are keeping it secret. It's just a good excuse for the politicians who get lots of money through "campaign contributions" (aka legal bribes) from defence contractors and weapons manufacturers to give them more US taxpayer money back through a stupid and futile war. I bet oil is involved somehow.

Russia stepped up and intervened, made an actual diplomatic deal, and the US has no option but to agree.

USA should be renamed USAWP: United States of American World Police.

[JANUARYJONES]

Wouldn't conspiracy Keanu be a better choice?

Nah, Conspiracy Keanu are in the form of what if's.

[Witchdoctor1]

I don't think anyone really knows who used the chemical weapons, and if they do they are keeping it secret. It's just a good excuse for the politicians who get lots of money through "campaign contributions" (aka legal bribes) from defence contractors and weapons manufacturers to give them more US taxpayer money back through a stupid and futile war. I bet oil is involved somehow.

Russia stepped up and intervened, made an actual diplomatic deal, and the US has no option but to agree.

USA should be renamed USAWP: United States of American World Police.

I have a couple points of contention with your argument, good sir. First, people use the whole oil argument for Iraq. We actually get less oil from Iraq now that when Saddam was in power. (see oil for food program) so what would lead one to believe that Syria, whose oil production is far less than Iraq's would be about oil? Second, if we were truly the world police, then we would have intervened in Sudan during the Darfur genocide, more active instead of using advisors and drones against Kony in the DRC, intervened militarily in Egypt and Tunisia during their revolutions, et al. Nay, my friend, the US only intervenes when it is A) convenient for them, B) a sure thing C) on a large enough global scale to garner mass attention. Syria is just that. Plus, just like Iraq, we know that if we get involved there, all the people who hate the West will be drawn there, allowing the US to fight its "enemies" on foreign soil. I like to call it "flex thine nuts far away from your backyard" syndrome.

[SirLogiC]

I don't think anyone really knows who used the chemical weapons, and if they do they are keeping it secret. It's just a good excuse for the politicians who get lots of money through "campaign contributions" (aka legal bribes) from defence contractors and weapons manufacturers to give them more US taxpayer money back through a stupid and futile war. I bet oil is involved somehow.

Russia stepped up and intervened, made an actual diplomatic deal, and the US has no option but to agree.

USA should be renamed USAWP: United States of American World Police.

I have a couple points of contention with your argument, good sir. First, people use the whole oil argument for Iraq. We actually get less oil from Iraq now that when Saddam was in power. (see oil for food program) so what would lead one to believe that Syria, whose oil production is far less than Iraq's would be about oil? Second, if we were truly the world police, then we would have intervened in Sudan during the Darfur genocide, more active instead of using advisors and drones against Kony in the DRC, intervened militarily in Egypt and Tunisia during their revolutions, et al. Nay, my friend, the US only intervenes when it is A) convenient for them, B) a sure thing C) on a large enough global scale to garner mass attention. Syria is just that. Plus, just like Iraq, we know that if we get involved there, all the people who hate the West will be drawn there, allowing the US to fight its "enemies" on foreign soil. I like to call it "flex thine nuts far away from your backyard" syndrome.

It's not about getting more oil for the US, it's about getting more money for the oil. Plus all those corporations that got extremely lucrative building contracts in Iraq. This whole Iraq thing was pure greed. There was no reason to go there, just a lot of people made a lot of money for it. It wasn't in the US's interest, but the interest of the rich and powerful who could A) influence politicians to start the war and B) monopolise all the opportunities to make money out of the suffering they caused.

So my comment about the oil connection in Syria holds. I read there is plans to build a massive oil/gas pipeline through Syria. So what better way to make sure the "correct" people get control over it that than to start a war. Again it hasn't nothing to do with getting more oil for the US, it's about giving the right companies the pipeline so they can profit, and the politicians in the US get the kick-backs through campaign contributions.

I guess this is sort of conspiracy laden crap lol, but if you look up the kinds of campaign contributions some politicians get from large corporations it's not hard to believe.

Also thank god Russia got involved. Nice to see diplomacy get used and avoid another stupid war.

I guess I can agree on the world police thing though. Greed Force maybe. There is this thing in the US called wolf-pac, pun name but there to reinstate limits on campaign contributions and overturn the ability for corporations to donate. Corporations are people as much as my ass is a bed of roses.

[Airbongo]

I don't think anyone really knows who used the chemical weapons, and if they do they are keeping it secret. It's just a good excuse for the politicians who get lots of money through "campaign contributions" (aka legal bribes) from defence contractors and weapons manufacturers to give them more US taxpayer money back through a stupid and futile war. I bet oil is involved somehow.

Russia stepped up and intervened, made an actual diplomatic deal, and the US has no option but to agree.

USA should be renamed USAWP: United States of American World Police.

I have a couple points of contention with your argument, good sir. First, people use the whole oil argument for Iraq. We actually get less oil from Iraq now that when Saddam was in power. (see oil for food program) so what would lead one to believe that Syria, whose oil production is far less than Iraq's would be about oil? Second, if we were truly the world police, then we would have intervened in Sudan during the Darfur genocide, more active instead of using advisors and drones against Kony in the DRC, intervened militarily in Egypt and Tunisia during their revolutions, et al. Nay, my friend, the US only intervenes when it is A) convenient for them, B) a sure thing C) on a large enough global scale to garner mass attention. Syria is just that. Plus, just like Iraq, we know that if we get involved there, all the people who hate the West will be drawn there, allowing the US to fight its "enemies" on foreign soil. I like to call it "flex thine nuts far away from your backyard" syndrome.

It's not about getting more oil for the US, it's about getting more money for the oil. Plus all those corporations that got extremely lucrative building contracts in Iraq. This whole Iraq thing was pure greed. There was no reason to go there, just a lot of people made a lot of money for it. It wasn't in the US's interest, but the interest of the rich and powerful who could A) influence politicians to start the war and B) monopolise all the opportunities to make money out of the suffering they caused.

So my comment about the oil connection in Syria holds. I read there is plans to build a massive oil/gas pipeline through Syria. So what better way to make sure the "correct" people get control over it that than to start a war. Again it hasn't nothing to do with getting more oil for the US, it's about giving the right companies the pipeline so they can profit, and the politicians in the US get the kick-backs through campaign contributions.

I guess this is sort of conspiracy laden crap lol, but if you look up the kinds of campaign contributions some politicians get from large corporations it's not hard to believe.

Also thank god Russia got involved. Nice to see diplomacy get used and avoid another stupid war.

I guess I can agree on the world police thing though. Greed Force maybe. There is this thing in the US called wolf-pac, pun name but there to reinstate limits on campaign contributions and overturn the ability for corporations to donate. Corporations are people as much as my ass is a bed of roses.

Your ass is like a peach though.

[Joshtimasprime]

Basically, niggas be trippin' all up in that Syria and our head nigga Obama is like "yo my fellow mericans, we should Hiroshima these bitches" and we be like "LOL, WUT?

[Die_Endermen]

Basically, niggas be trippin' all up in that Syria and our head nigga Obama is like "yo my fellow mericans, we should Hiroshima these bitches" and we be like "LOL, WUT?

[Saxturian]

Basically, niggas be trippin' all up in that Syria and our head nigga Obama is like "yo my fellow mericans, we should Hiroshima these bitches" and we be like "LOL, WUT?

X to the D dawg.