MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Syria
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Sorry guys for not being active here; I just joined Flickr, I started high school, and a bunch of other stuff have put this group on the back burner.

Anyways, this seems to be a MASSIVE debate across the globe, but what should we do about Syria? Should the US get involved? What shall be done?

DEBATE!
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 4:55 pm
Syria can worry about Syrian affairs. They're the only ones who need to.

But considering that is not the way things are going... ugh, I can't understand how the US hasn't learned their lesson about the Middle East. Syria will be no different than all the other fiascoes. And Obama playing our plans off as "no boots on the ground" to make it more palatable is actually not reassuring at all. What was Pearl Harbor? It was a concentrated air strike, with "No boots on the ground" and was clearly not acceptable. We will be killing innocents as well as militants, and it is completely unjustified.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 8:07 pm
 Group admin 
It's unfortunate that we're painted into a corner by Obama's red line statement. I won't blame him too much, I agreed with him at the time. Most of the rebels are linked to terrorists, Assad can keep bombing them for all I care. This has no interest in our national security. It's one thing for the Russians to sell them arms, as a "business is business" sort of thing, but how can they possibly be outright supporting the government cause?
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 8:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Medieval Guy
Syria can worry about Syrian affairs. They're the only ones who need to.

But considering that is not the way things are going... ugh, I can't understand how the US hasn't learned their lesson about the Middle East. Syria will be no different than all the other fiascoes. And Obama playing our plans off as "no boots on the ground" to make it more palatable is actually not reassuring at all. What was Pearl Harbor? It was a concentrated air strike, with "No boots on the ground" and was clearly not acceptable. We will be killing innocents as well as militants, and it is completely unjustified.

The big thing is chemical weapons.

Pearl Harbor was bad; don't get me wrong there. But that isn't quite comparable. The US did practically nothing to Japan to render that attack.

Syria is interesting in the sense that really, there is no good guys.

Help Assad, and you are backing up a regime that is using chemical weapons (this has been proven by the US, UK, France, among other nations via DNA testing).

I say to be very, very careful here. If we do go in, we drop bombs on Chemical storage facilities. Who dies there aren't innocent civilians; why are they in a chemical weapons storage yard?

Putting boots on the ground? No. We have already mucked up Iraq and Afghanistan. PUT NO ONE ON THE GROUND. Except NSA/CIA operatives. Cause, ya know.

This whole business of Iran is another interesting point though. This might be the tipping point of Iran; though interestingly, its population has one of the highest approval rates of the US in the Middle East (crazy, right?) but the folks in power are less than trustworthy. If Iran comes into play, 10 bucks says that Israel will come charging up its trumpet.

If (rather, when) that happens, then no country in their right mind would back off. Why? You have a country that is trying to arm itself with nukes, fighting a country that most likely has them, which BTW, hates its neighbors, which include a country that is going through a civil war in which the gov't there is using chemical weapons, while the "liberators" are, essentially, Al Qaeda/Taliban members.

I do know, 100%, that the US shouldn't arm any side of this conflict. I also know that they need to be very careful.

Also, in case you all are wondering why Russia is being so stubborn about their side of this argument (and the US is also, mind you) is that Russia has its only naval port, guess where? In, yeah, Syria.

What a mess.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 8:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
It's unfortunate that we're painted into a corner by Obama's red line statement. I won't blame him too much, I agreed with him at the time. Most of the rebels are linked to terrorists, Assad can keep bombing them for all I care. This has no interest in our national security. It's one thing for the Russians to sell them arms, as a "business is business" sort of thing, but how can they possibly be outright supporting the government cause?

'Cause Russia is just as bad as people claim the US is. They have a naval port in Syria, and most weapons used by BOTH sides of war are using Russian equipment. Oh, and Iran is nearby, which is a Russian ally.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:00 pm
Who cares if they use chemical weapons? I mean, you'll be just as dead if you're killed by bullet, bomb, or chemical. And conventional weaponry or biological weapons are equally, if not more so, effective and deadly.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Who cares if they use chemical weapons? I mean, you'll be just as dead if you're killed by bullet, bomb, or chemical. And conventional weaponry or biological weapons are equally, if not more so, effective and deadly.

.....everyone cares. Any WWI soldier will tell you that a gas attack is WAY worse than a conventional attack. I would rank chem weapons almost as bad as a small tactical nuke, as they can spread a deadly chemical across thousands of people, from just one blast of a rocket, or bomb.

They were outlawed by the world for a reason. Breaking that law must mean some consequence; if not, then we would essentially be waving forward other regimes to commit similar war crimes. This once happened in history (the League of Nations) and that very much helped cause WWII.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:21 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....everyone cares. Any WWI soldier will tell you that a gas attack is WAY worse than a conventional attack. I would rank chem weapons almost as bad as a small tactical nuke, as they can spread a deadly chemical across thousands of people, from just one blast of a rocket, or bomb.

They were outlawed by the world for a reason. Breaking that law must mean some consequence; if not, then we would essentially be waving forward other regimes to commit similar war crimes. This once happened in history (the League of Nations) and that very much helped cause WWII.

Gas attacks are more easily countered, less dangerous, and have less potential for collateral damage than conventional and biological weaponry. Perhaps they cause a bit more pain, or fear, but when we look at this without emotion we see that chemical weapons aren't exactly in a league of their own.
I'm not saying that people who break these accords shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that people who use any form of lethal force should be punished, and the method is immaterial.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Gas attacks are more easily countered, less dangerous, and have less potential for collateral damage than conventional and biological weaponry. Perhaps they cause a bit more pain, or fear, but when we look at this without emotion we see that chemical weapons aren't exactly in a league of their own.
I'm not saying that people who break these accords shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that people who use any form of lethal force should be punished, and the method is immaterial.

"More easily countered and less dangerous"

I'm, not so sure about that.

The gas in question in Syria is Sarin, which, after a quick research session, tells me that its pretty bad. Paralysis you. Eventually kills you, as you can't breathe.

Now, I don't honestly know how accurate the number are, but US gov't claims that upwards of 1,000 people died from just one attack. If you ask me, that is a lot. To give you a perspective of how much that is, that is from one or two ROCKETS.

How do you counter a rocket attack? The rebels don't have anti rocket weapons, and most certainly can't access the launch facilities.

Chemical weapons create WAY more collateral damage, as they can hitch a ride with simple wind to spread out.

Chemical weapons are in a league of their own. They can cause widespread disease and death, even if only a small amount exposed to an environment. Take a look at the Japanese terrorist attack, on March 20, 1995. Interestingly, it used Sarin. THAT was considered domestic terrorism, and 13 people were killed, with over 6 THOUSAND injuries.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:51 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"More easily countered and less dangerous"

I'm, not so sure about that.

The gas in question in Syria is Sarin, which, after a quick research session, tells me that its pretty bad. Paralysis you. Eventually kills you, as you can't breathe.

Now, I don't honestly know how accurate the number are, but US gov't claims that upwards of 1,000 people died from just one attack. If you ask me, that is a lot. To give you a perspective of how much that is, that is from one or two ROCKETS.

How do you counter a rocket attack? The rebels don't have anti rocket weapons, and most certainly can't access the launch facilities.

Chemical weapons create WAY more collateral damage, as they can hitch a ride with simple wind to spread out.

Chemical weapons are in a league of their own. They can cause widespread disease and death, even if only a small amount exposed to an environment. Take a look at the Japanese terrorist attack, on March 20, 1995. Interestingly, it used Sarin. THAT was considered domestic terrorism, and 13 people were killed, with over 6 THOUSAND injuries.

Fair enough, it's pretty deadly, and tough for rebels to counter. But then again, so are tanks and armed troopers. If they shot 1000 civilians, would it not be the same as if they gassed them?

Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Fair enough, it's pretty deadly, and tough for rebels to counter. But then again, so are tanks and armed troopers. If they shot 1000 civilians, would it not be the same as if they gassed them?

Its bad, but in a different way. Those are also war crimes, but they fall into a sorta different league, if you will.

Assad's regime is, no doubt, committing terrible war crimes, but the introduction of chem weapons shows that he isn't going to peacefully resolve this.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 9:58 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its bad, but in a different way. Those are also war crimes, but they fall into a sorta different league, if you will.

Assad's regime is, no doubt, committing terrible war crimes, but the introduction of chem weapons shows that he isn't going to peacefully resolve this.

I'm game for that. I concede to your wise judgement, though I still find the emphasis on chemicals excessive.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
I'm game for that. I concede to your wise judgement, though I still find the emphasis on chemicals excessive.

I think its just the media, really. You can't really downplay chemical weapons, but by the same token, the mass media is just throwing out action words, left and right, to make the top story.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:02 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I think its just the media, really. You can't really downplay chemical weapons, but by the same token, the mass media is just throwing out action words, left and right, to make the top story.

Yeah, I agree. Media is the real regime these days...
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Yeah, I agree. Media is the real regime these days...

And their chemical weapons are their opinions....
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:06 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Yeah, I agree. Media is the real regime these days...

What are your thoughts on Iran? Whaddya think they will do?
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:08 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What are your thoughts on Iran? Whaddya think they will do?

No clue, to be honest I'm not really on top of these things. I might do some research in the morning though...
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:32 pm
Last I heard, you lot were supposed to be BOMBING Al-Qaeda, not flying close air support for them.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:35 pm
 Group admin 

That.....WAY over simplifies things. No action= the US allowing Assad to use his chemical weapons with no reparations. THAT cannot be allowed.

This is very much the US, and the rest of the world's, business. Chemical weapons were banned, and we can't simply allow a power to use them without any punishment.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Last I heard, you lot were supposed to be BOMBING Al-Qaeda, not flying close air support for them.

See comments all over the place.


That is one of the troubling issues. Help them out, and you are helping the enemy, again. But you have to realize that many of those killed are on neither side. Can we really just abandon them?

And are you suggesting to support Assad?
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:38 pm
How about selling both sides all the ammo and hand grenades they want? Cheap casings on the 50 cal rounds, short fuses on every sixth grenade or so. Bad idea? Keeps them occupied, doing what they really want to do (let's not pretend otherwise). Keeps them from bothering Israel. Oh come on!
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:56 pm
Quoting El Barto !
How about selling both sides all the ammo and hand grenades they want? Cheap casings on the 50 cal rounds, short fuses on every sixth grenade or so. Bad idea? Keeps them occupied, doing what they really want to do (let's not pretend otherwise). Keeps them from bothering Israel. Oh come on!

LOL, that's pretty great.
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 10:59 pm
Although a little sarcastic, the reasoning has its merits. Our foreign policy isn't to necessarily fix the world's problems, it should be to keep our enemies/adversaries off balance and distracted. Spreading democracy and capitalism where it might have a chance is a good idea, pounding sand down a rat hole, not so much. Minimizing our military involvement and financial investment conserves resources for a time when our interests are threatened more directly. Like our major cities, run into the ground by generations of liberal mismanagement: Maybe we should focus on problems at home? Want to see a war zone, check this out- http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz/call-it-hiroshima-and-detroit-the-damage-democrats-do-to-the-poor-lasts-longer-than-a-nuclear-bomb/
Permalink
| September 6, 2013, 11:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Sorry guys for not being active here; I just joined Flickr, I started high school, and a bunch of other stuff have put this group on the back burner.
I happy to see you around, it's been tough but I managed to keep the place going! That's completely off topic though. Sorry.

Permalink
| September 7, 2013, 2:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting El Barto !
How about selling both sides all the ammo and hand grenades they want? Cheap casings on the 50 cal rounds, short fuses on every sixth grenade or so.

HAAHAAHAA
Permalink
| September 7, 2013, 6:29 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
See comments all over the place.


That is one of the troubling issues. Help them out, and you are helping the enemy, again. But you have to realize that many of those killed are on neither side. Can we really just abandon them?

And are you suggesting to support Assad?

I agree with everything you've said, but I don't think that it's prudent to "invade" another country because there is "proof" an idiot used chem. weapons. Once the US invades, Canada, Britain, and the rest of NATO will have to follow, and who are they supporting? The terrorists that they have been trying to exterminate for a decade. Then Russia along with it's allies China and Iran will come along to "defend" the regime. What ensues is a terrible mess, and who suffers? The innocent citizens who have nothing to do with the whole affair. Two wrongs don't make a right...
Permalink
| September 7, 2013, 10:07 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Yeah, I agree. Media is the real regime these days...

Too true...
Permalink
| September 7, 2013, 10:28 pm
Well for me, i see it as a lose/lose situation. Syria already bombed their own people with ugly chemical stuff, and that was where Obama drew the line. and he knew that would happen anyway, so he sat back and waited for the last minute to get angry and go strike force on Assad AFTER people died from the attacks in august. If Congress doesn't authorize a strike, Syria will become nothing. All the people will be gone and the government would be destroyed after the civil war tears the country apart.

and if we Do strike, with good luck, the government will be done and the people will win, but then the countries like Russia and another country that support Assad will get mad at the us, and go after us. then we fight them, our allies get into it, the enemy's allies get into it, and you have World War 3! all over a country that couldn't keep it self together.

(thanks for letting me in this group, this was a great idea! i've always wanted to debate on world wide events, i watch the news alot so have my references
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 2:47 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
That is one of the troubling issues. Help them out, and you are helping the enemy, again. But you have to realize that many of those killed are on neither side. Can we really just abandon them?

You suggest that anyone but Russia has been 'with' them in the first place.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
And are you suggesting to support Assad?

I'm suggesting either nuke the whole place or don't get involved in the first place, because embroiling yourself in that kind of war is a great way to pour money and lives down the toilet.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 3:46 am
Quoting Areetsa C
I'm suggesting either nuke the whole place or don't get involved in the first place, because embroiling yourself in that kind of war is a great way to pour money and lives down the toilet.

Finally, someone who agrees.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 4:36 am
Let them deal with their own problem. Ever time some country in that part of the world acts we "have" to go in like that guy and occupy them for 5 years, lose 7,000 troops and then blame the president before you. So no. I don't like what they did though, using chemical weapons is bad, but seriously, we should just put a tomahawk missile really close to the capital building, empty, with a note, saying "next time, we won't be so nice".
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 9:19 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
I'm suggesting either nuke the whole place or don't get involved in the first place, because embroiling yourself in that kind of war is a great way to pour money and lives down the toilet.

....isn't nuking someone the same as "a great way to pour money and lives down the toilet"?

BTW, may I remind you, Russia has a naval base in Syria, and an important one. Do you not think they are kinda interested in keeping it there?

Are the use of chemical weapons now excusable? As taking NO action means that anyone can do what they want with them....
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 12:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
Let them deal with their own problem. Ever time some country in that part of the world acts we "have" to go in like that guy and occupy them for 5 years, lose 7,000 troops and then blame the president before you. So no. I don't like what they did though, using chemical weapons is bad, but seriously, we should just put a tomahawk missile really close to the capital building, empty, with a note, saying "next time, we won't be so nice".

Firing a single tomahawk, though, will put us into the conflict, right?

I'm not saying that the civil war is our matter; it isn't. But the use of chemical weapons is. It's a clear violation International Law, and it can't simply be waved because of the disastrous Iraq or Afghanistan War.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 1:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Mark McPeek
I agree with everything you've said, but I don't think that it's prudent to "invade" another country because there is "proof" an idiot used chem. weapons. Once the US invades, Canada, Britain, and the rest of NATO will have to follow, and who are they supporting? The terrorists that they have been trying to exterminate for a decade. Then Russia along with it's allies China and Iran will come along to "defend" the regime. What ensues is a terrible mess, and who suffers? The innocent citizens who have nothing to do with the whole affair. Two wrongs don't make a right...

Nato and the lot will show up to support, as I stated earlier, International Law. Chemical weapons=war crimes, and honestly, its either Assad's regime killing his population without a doubt, or possibly civilians dying in an invasion. Which I why I say no invasion, but mass airstrikes.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 1:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting TRON 117
Well for me, i see it as a lose/lose situation. Syria already bombed their own people with ugly chemical stuff, and that was where Obama drew the line. and he knew that would happen anyway, so he sat back and waited for the last minute to get angry and go strike force on Assad AFTER people died from the attacks in august. If Congress doesn't authorize a strike, Syria will become nothing. All the people will be gone and the government would be destroyed after the civil war tears the country apart.

and if we Do strike, with good luck, the government will be done and the people will win, but then the countries like Russia and another country that support Assad will get mad at the us, and go after us. then we fight them, our allies get into it, the enemy's allies get into it, and you have World War 3! all over a country that couldn't keep it self together.

(thanks for letting me in this group, this was a great idea! i've always wanted to debate on world wide events, i watch the news alot so have my references

Welcome man!

Now, lets see.

The big problem is that the uprising is led by, essentially, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. I feel that they aren't people we really need to be helping.

But on the flip side, Assad has committed a "war crime"; using chem weapons. So does that out weigh the terrorist groups?

Well. Maybe. But for me, its pretty even here.

But no action, and International Law WILL NOT be served, and that is simply not right.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 1:07 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
....isn't nuking someone the same as "a great way to pour money and lives down the toilet"?

BTW, may I remind you, Russia has a naval base in Syria, and an important one. Do you not think they are kinda interested in keeping it there?

Are the use of chemical weapons now excusable? As taking NO action means that anyone can do what they want with them....

Not so much on the money . . .
And it wouldn't be lives of citizens of countries that don't have chemical weapons problems . . .
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 1:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Not so much on the money . . .
And it wouldn't be lives of citizens of countries that don't have chemical weapons problems . . .

A nuclear warhead costs, in excess, of a million USD. Couple that with a million or so dollar rocket, and a launch facility, and yeah, very expensive.

Nuke them, and what happens to neighboring countries?
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 1:09 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
A nuclear warhead costs, in excess, of a million USD. Couple that with a million or so dollar rocket, and a launch facility, and yeah, very expensive.

Nuke them, and what happens to neighboring countries?

Do you know how many Nukes America has lying around?

What happens to neighbouring countries?
Who cares?
You know, there's a better solution than Nuking, yes Zach, there is, yes, I know Nukes are fun, but there's a more simple solution:
Leave them to sort it out by themselves.
Come one people, when did the West (and America specifically) decided it should be the world's mother, "looking after" them and stopping fights?
Seriously, other countries are big and ugly enough to look after themselves.
So let's just solve our own debt crisis before we race off looking for other problems to "fix".
The West has other problems to sort out, such as making itself self-sufficient in the event of - well, that's for another topic somewhere else.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 3:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Do you know how many Nukes America has lying around?

What happens to neighbouring countries?
Who cares?
You know, there's a better solution than Nuking, yes Zach, there is, yes, I know Nukes are fun, but there's a more simple solution:
Leave them to sort it out by themselves.
Come one people, when did the West (and America specifically) decided it should be the world's mother, "looking after" them and stopping fights?
Seriously, other countries are big and ugly enough to look after themselves.
So let's just solve our own debt crisis before we race off looking for other problems to "fix".
The West has other problems to sort out, such as making itself self-sufficient in the event of - well, that's for another topic somewhere else.

There's no doubt that the West has its own problems, but the use of chemical weapons is an INTERNATIONAL crisis. Its like saying that you shouldn't been involved in an investigation of why your neighbor was murdered; may not be your house or family, but you still have a reason for justice.

The civil war, as I have said before, isn't America's business. But the use of chemical weapons is, as the US is bound by International Law to ban them.

And I don't think Iran would fancy its ally being nuked.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 3:32 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
There's no doubt that the West has its own problems, but the use of chemical weapons is an INTERNATIONAL crisis. Its like saying that you shouldn't been involved in an investigation of why your neighbor was murdered; may not be your house or family, but you still have a reason for justice.

The civil war, as I have said before, isn't America's business. But the use of chemical weapons is, as the US is bound by International Law to ban them.

And I don't think Iran would fancy its ally being nuked.

At this risk of sounding childish: Nuke them too.
America has the military power to wipe out all opposition. I think a lot of people have forgotten that since the '60s, including America.

Why is the use of chemical weapons in a relatively meaningless country like Syria a big problem internationally? As long as they can't launch them across the seas.

That's the big problem with laws and rules: People have to obey them in order for them to work.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 3:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
At this risk of sounding childish: Nuke them too.
America has the military power to wipe out all opposition. I think a lot of people have forgotten that since the '60s, including America.

Why is the use of chemical weapons in a relatively meaningless country like Syria a big problem internationally? As long as they can't launch them across the seas.

That's the big problem with laws and rules: People have to obey them in order for them to work.

The international outcry from nuking Iran, which would result in MILLIONS of civilian deaths, would be the end of the US.

The big problem is that Syria is freely using chemical weapons. That simply isn't allowed. Its like allowing someone to murder, but because you aren't involved, you won't stop it.

Once again, international law is required to be followed by all countries.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 4:42 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .

relatively meaningless country

Well that is absolutely insulting.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 5:22 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The big problem is that Syria is freely using chemical weapons. That simply isn't allowed. Its like allowing someone to murder, but because you aren't involved, you won't stop it.

Once again, international law is required to be followed by all countries.


Again, I don't like or agree with what Syria did at all, but if we (USA) invade we're going to end up in another Afghanistan like war. At most we send some B-2s and F-15s over, take out their chemical weapons and their factories for chemical weapons, and leave. No American lives in high risk, no civilian casualties, moral obligation filled, and the rest of their civil war can go however it goes.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 5:40 pm
 Group admin 
If this is such a bad breach of international law, why don't some other country take care of it? It's someone else's turn to be the world's police.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 7:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K

Again, I don't like or agree with what Syria did at all, but if we (USA) invade we're going to end up in another Afghanistan like war. At most we send some B-2s and F-15s over, take out their chemical weapons and their factories for chemical weapons, and leave. No American lives in high risk, no civilian casualties, moral obligation filled, and the rest of their civil war can go however it goes.

Well, American lives would be at stake, but I ask basically for that. B-2s and F-15s take out Chemical weapons sites, anything left will be knocked out by mass B-1 or B-2 strikes, and then GET OUT. I honestly am not currently interested in who wins this war, as either outcome is not good (no Deus, terrorists against the US ARE evil).
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
If this is such a bad breach of international law, why don't some other country take care of it? It's someone else's turn to be the world's police.

Because no other country has the power or status to make such an action. Whats more, all other countries are scared to death thanks to the miserable second Iraq war. Oh, and the US is now painted as an evil empire.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .

relatively meaningless country

Well that is absolutely insulting.

Yet many countries say the same about the US, and get away with it.....
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Because no other country has the power or status to make such an action. Whats more, all other countries are scared to death thanks to the miserable second Iraq war. Oh, and the US is now painted as an evil empire.

The Europeans could do it. I don't think this will be a 2nd Iraq, worst case scenario. Libya wan't that bad (Qaddafi's successors were no better though, same will happen in Syria), and what's being suggested is less than that. Who is saying we're an evil empire?
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:25 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
(no Deus, terrorists against the US ARE evil).

Both sides are evil. But no single terrorist is evil, as is no official soldier.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:32 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Who is saying we're an evil empire?

Everybody who does not agree with your system while you forcefully impose it unto them.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:34 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yet many countries say the same about the US, and get away with it.....

Why would you not get away with it? Does it make it less insultive then?
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
The Europeans could do it. I don't think this will be a 2nd Iraq, worst case scenario. Libya wan't that bad (Qaddafi's successors were no better though, same will happen in Syria), and what's being suggested is less than that. Who is saying we're an evil empire?

Deus, Russia, China, Eastern Europeans, the Middle East, North Korea (ha!), ehm, thats a lot!
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Everybody who does not agree with your system while you forcefully impose it unto them.

Yeah, the middle east has shown time and time again they're not interested in Jeffersonian Democracy.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why would you not get away with it? Does it make it less insultive then?

Because most people label Americans as fat, lazy, stereotyping idiots, when they themselves are stereotyping. And people don't say anything about that.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:38 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Everybody who does not agree with your system while you forcefully impose it unto them.

You mean Democracy?
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Both sides are evil. But no single terrorist is evil, as is no official soldier.

Well. The folks on those planes on 9/11 were very much evil. Very evil. Monstrous, in fact.
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:40 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well. The folks on those planes on 9/11 were very much evil. Very evil. Monstrous, in fact.

Including the passengers, who were government stooges!
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Including the passengers, who were government stooges!

Sarcasm? I hope so :-0
Permalink
| September 9, 2013, 8:46 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well. The folks on those planes on 9/11 were very much evil. Very evil. Monstrous, in fact.

I think (if that attack was even legitimate) those were just dudes. If Al Qaida exists, it manipulated those dudes.


It is like if I had a shooting course and you came and I gave you a gun to shoot at some targets and there were people behind. You are a murdured and yet you do not know what you did. (I know it is not exactly like that, but do not try to prove me wrong by my choice of comparisons.)

Quoting Achintya Prasad
You mean Democracy?

Kind of. Not really. I mean more like turbo-capitalism and other economy systems and ideas.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 5:51 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I think (if that attack was even legitimate) those were just dudes. If Al Qaida exists, it manipulated those dudes.


It is like if I had a shooting course and you came and I gave you a gun to shoot at some targets and there were people behind. You are a murdured and yet you do not know what you did. (I know it is not exactly like that, but do not try to prove me wrong by my choice of comparisons.)

Quoting Achintya Prasad
You mean Democracy?

Kind of. Not really. I mean more like turbo-capitalism and other economy systems and ideas.

Maybe. But honestly, Flight 93 showed that monsters can be grown from humans. But they can all be overcome by humans.

I don't really have much to say about the capitalism. What honestly should I say to a pro communist person? J Edgar Hoover, help me!

BTW, whats your stance on this new Russia takes the Chem Weapons?
I personally prefer it to airstrikes, but it should be an international effort.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 5:13 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad

BTW, whats your stance on this new Russia takes the Chem Weapons?
I personally prefer it to airstrikes, but it should be an international effort.

I have little connection to world news.

I guess it is hard to predict what they want, especially if it is explicitly said to do something not in initial plan.
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 5:38 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I have little connection to world news.

I guess it is hard to predict what they want, especially if it is explicitly said to do something not in initial plan.

Problem I have is that Russia is a relatively close ally to Syria. I'm not sure if they are the best for this role.....
Permalink
| September 10, 2013, 6:34 pm
Overall.. It's a bad idea. And what's with President Obama jumping the gun when he's been judging Bush?
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears
Overall.. It's a bad idea. And what's with President Obama jumping the gun when he's been judging Bush?

Sigh. The thing is that the second Iraq invasion was for WMDs that weren't supposedly there in Iraq. Here, in Syria, we are having a civil rights violation, in which chemical weapons are KNOWN to be used.

I say take no side, just blow the chem weapons to kingdom come, and get on with it.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 8:43 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Sigh. The thing is that the second Iraq invasion was for WMDs that weren't supposedly there in Iraq. Here, in Syria, we are having a civil rights violation, in which chemical weapons are KNOWN to be used.

I say take no side, just blow the chem weapons to kingdom come, and get on with it.

I agree, the moment diplomacy fails, the US should show off the B-2 and pound those WMDs into oblivion. Then, we leave like nothing ever happened. (Creepy smile)
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 8:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
I agree, the moment diplomacy fails, the US should show off the B-2 and pound those WMDs into oblivion. Then, we leave like nothing ever happened. (Creepy smile)

I'm not sure that the current state of "Russia takes the Chemical weapons, and everyone is happy" is a good idea, at all. Russia is a close ally with Syria, so, I mean, what are the chances they actually want to confront Assad?
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:00 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I'm not sure that the current state of "Russia takes the Chemical weapons, and everyone is happy" is a good idea, at all. Russia is a close ally with Syria, so, I mean, what are the chances they actually want to confront Assad?

Well I think we (USA) should take them, destroy them, and tell Syria 'you do this agin, and we wont be so diplomatic'. In other words, next time, just blow up their chem weapons.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
Well I think we (USA) should take them, destroy them, and tell Syria 'you do this agin, and we wont be so diplomatic'. In other words, next time, just blow up their chem weapons.

Well, in theory, that sounds good, but we aren't even getting support for a military air strike, much less taking them up.

I honestly don't know why a country would even own any chemical weapons, I mean, when are you gonna use them?

The US is already reducing its stockpile, yet even so, guess who is the enemy.....
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:09 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, in theory, that sounds good, but we aren't even getting support for a military air strike, much less taking them up.

I honestly don't know why a country would even own any chemical weapons, I mean, when are you gonna use them?

The US is already reducing its stockpile, yet even so, guess who is the enemy.....

I know we don't have support. I swear we are the only country left with the tenacity to fight, but everything we do is a crime.

As for why we have chemical weapons, 'cause the USSR did. It was a cold war arms race. Now they are made by fledgling counties to try to intimidate other countries.

We should just get rid of ours, we have enough nukes to win if all he11 brakes lose. I don't like nukes either, but if we don't have them, someone might use them on us.

Also, just a note, in things like this where I talk about a strategy I usually mean it somewhat sarcastically, like if we could do what ever we wanted.

Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
I know we don't have support. I swear we are the only country left with the tenacity to fight, but everything we do is a crime.

As for why we have chemical weapons, 'cause the USSR did. It was a cold war arms race. Now they are made by fledgling counties to try to intimidate other countries.

We should just get rid of ours, we have enough nukes to win if all he11 brakes lose. I don't like nukes either, but if we don't have them, someone might use them on us.

Also, just a note, in things like this where I talk about a strategy I usually mean it somewhat sarcastically, like if we could do what ever we wanted.

True, true.

I mean, I'm talking now though. Chem weapons need not apply!

Of course, there are people who want to nuke the place, but then the US REALLY, for real, is the enemy.

Why is is that the world must hate on the US?
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:31 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, true.

I mean, I'm talking now though. Chem weapons need not apply!

Of course, there are people who want to nuke the place, but then the US REALLY, for real, is the enemy.

Why is is that the world must hate on the US?

The world hates us sine we are powerful. We have a incredibly powerful military, a comparatively strong economy, and we also can spread our influence across the world very easily. We are the only superpower, and therefore everyone sees us as a threat. Also, lots of people have this view of the US as a bunch of trigger-happy, nuclear armed, ultranationalist, imperialists.

Oddly enough though, most countries we help seem to hate us, look a China, we liberated them from Japan in WWII, they now look at us as a ripe target to overpower. Afghanistan, 1979, the USSR invades, we give the Mujahadein (I have no idea how to spell that okay) stinger missiles and other small arms in the 2000s the group now goes by Al-queda and uses those weapons against us. By the same token those we kill love us, Japan, nuked twice, one of best allies. Germany, leveled during WWI, one of our strongest allies in NATO. Even Great Britain, our revolution sparked a series of revolts lead to the decline of their empire. Yes, there are exceptions but this is just a pattern I noticed.

Lastly, I don't know if you mistook me, but I don't think that nuclear weapons should ever be used. I would call for a conventional strike using small bombs, only about 500 lbs.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 10:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
The world hates us sine we are powerful. We have a incredibly powerful military, a comparatively strong economy, and we also can spread our influence across the world very easily. We are the only superpower, and therefore everyone sees us as a threat. Also, lots of people have this view of the US as a bunch of trigger-happy, nuclear armed, ultranationalist, imperialists.

Oddly enough though, most countries we help seem to hate us, look a China, we liberated them from Japan in WWII, they now look at us as a ripe target to overpower. Afghanistan, 1979, the USSR invades, we give the Mujahadein (I have no idea how to spell that okay) stinger missiles and other small arms in the 2000s the group now goes by Al-queda and uses those weapons against us. By the same token those we kill love us, Japan, nuked twice, one of best allies. Germany, leveled during WWI, one of our strongest allies in NATO. Even Great Britain, our revolution sparked a series of revolts lead to the decline of their empire. Yes, there are exceptions but this is just a pattern I noticed.

Lastly, I don't know if you mistook me, but I don't think that nuclear weapons should ever be used. I would call for a conventional strike using small bombs, only about 500 lbs.

Yeah, I was referring to someone above, I think.

Its important to note, though, the people in charge of China are also the people that threw out the government we helped in WWII; and China is very close to Russia, which, lets be honest here, doesn't like us.

I'm not so sure we are the only super power (China and India are strong candidates) but I do think that its sorta "the lucky guy is bullied" thing, where even if you win, you lose.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 10:13 pm
Regardless, I don't see the need for the US to be the world's police.
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 1:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears
Regardless, I don't see the need for the US to be the world's police.

Well, who do you think should be "the police"? Can't have a world without one, unless you want a possible WWIII.
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 7:37 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, who do you think should be "the police"? Can't have a world without one, unless you want a possible WWIII.


No one really. :) Poking our noses in other countries problems is not a smart way to operate, considering that we already have.. expensive.. problems of our own. Here's an idea, how about each country handles themselves?
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 8:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears

No one really. :) Poking our noses in other countries problems is not a smart way to operate, considering that we already have.. expensive.. problems of our own. Here's an idea, how about each country handles themselves?

Not possible. Take, for instance, Somalia. No government (that works), total lawlessness, its h*rrible. Who is gonna step in to help?

If countries handle themselves, then yeah, theoretically, it would all work out. But history has proven WAY too many times that letting a country go is a just a way of delaying a costly war.
Permalink
| September 12, 2013, 9:20 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Not possible. Take, for instance, Somalia. No government (that works), total lawlessness, its h*rrible. Who is gonna step in to help?

If countries handle themselves, then yeah, theoretically, it would all work out. But history has proven WAY too many times that letting a country go is a just a way of delaying a costly war.



Ok, granted, some people just can't handle themselves, but think about the repercussions of us HELPING Syria. Others have said they will bomb Israel (more) if we help Syria. So, why are we being so irresponsible? I don't see a huge rush to help persecuted Christians in other countries.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 9:36 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears


Ok, granted, some people just can't handle themselves, but think about the repercussions of us HELPING Syria. Others have said they will bomb Israel (more) if we help Syria. So, why are we being so irresponsible? I don't see a huge rush to help persecuted Christians in other countries.

There are some important things to note:
Syria is, as I have already stated, a host to Russia's only Naval Base in that region of the world; heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the folks stationed there have been helping the Syrians.

Also, we are obligate to protect Israel; while they most certainly CAN defend themselves, could they do so with both Syrian and Iranian closing in?

Its all a balancing act, as you have Russians and Syrians, and Chemical weapons, and Israel, and Oil, and how knows what else.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 5:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
There are some important things to note:
Syria is, as I have already stated, a host to Russia's only Naval Base in that region of the world; heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the folks stationed there have been helping the Syrians.

I heard Putin says Russia will shoot down American missiles. They never miss a chance to stick their thumb in our eye.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
could they do so with both Syrian and Iranian closing in?

Oh sure. They destroyed Syria and Egypt at the same time in the '70's or '80's.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 6:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
There are some important things to note:
Syria is, as I have already stated, a host to Russia's only Naval Base in that region of the world; heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the folks stationed there have been helping the Syrians.

I heard Putin says Russia will shoot down American missiles. They never miss a chance to stick their thumb in our eye.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
could they do so with both Syrian and Iranian closing in?

Oh sure. They destroyed Syria and Egypt at the same time in the '70's or '80's.

God, Russia can be SO, lets be kind here, difficult. Ugh.

Anyways, true, but let me say, that even if Israel could hold them off, that would involve the entire Middle East to get into a massive war. And honestly, who wants that?
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 6:39 pm
The best choice is not to get involved. Both sides of the conflict have commited crimes, Assad using chem weapons, and the Al-Queda terrorist's. We need to stay out of the conflict for now as there is no right choice. We either aid terrorists or war criminals and lose American soldiers in a war that is not are own. Stay out of it and let them have this war. I believe these wars are planned out. They want to draw the great America into war. For every devistating war we go into, there is less incentive to enter another one. This is what happened at WWII. After WWI we did not get into another war. If we had entered the war early, a lot of Jewish lives would have been saved. We stayed out of it however, and payed with Pearl Harbor. We should stay out of it but also stay on the alert. If they attack Israel or another such country, we should then get invloved. I don't know about you, but I think Assad and Al-Queada are hoping to start WWIII. I hope this helped!
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:14 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
The best choice is not to get involved. Both sides of the conflict have commited crimes, Assad using chem weapons, and the Al-Queda terrorist's. We need to stay out of the conflict for now as there is no right choice. We either aid terrorists or war criminals and lose American soldiers in a war that is not are own. Stay out of it and let them have this war. I believe these wars are planned out. They want to draw the great America into war. For every devistating war we go into, there is less incentive to enter another one. This is what happened at WWII. After WWI we did not get into another war. If we had entered the war early, a lot of Jewish lives would have been saved. We stayed out of it however, and payed with Pearl Harbor. We should stay out of it but also stay on the alert. If they attack Israel or another such country, we should then get invloved. I don't know about you, but I think Assad and Al-Queada are hoping to start WWIII. I hope this helped!

Yeah, but the use of chemical weapons is the problem. Is the US not committed on holding up international norm?
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:22 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, but the use of chemical weapons is the problem. Is the US not committed on holding up international norm?

I am not saying I agree with the use of chemical weapons. I am saying that we should wait. If Assad wins, then we go in and teach him a lesson. If the terrorists win we teach them a lesson.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
I am not saying I agree with the use of chemical weapons. I am saying that we should wait. If Assad wins, then we go in and teach him a lesson. If the terrorists win we teach them a lesson.

....but either eventuality would leave millions of people dead. I say go in, blow up the chemical weapons, and leave.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:32 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
....but either eventuality would leave millions of people dead. I say go in, blow up the chemical weapons, and leave.

If Russia is defending Assad, then we will doutlessly lose some planes. And if we lose planes, America will become angry and demand war.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
If Russia is defending Assad, then we will doutlessly lose some planes. And if we lose planes, America will become angry and demand war.

Well. If we use B-2s, then most likely not.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:49 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well. If we use B-2s, then most likely not.

Then Russia will declare war on us.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Then Russia will declare war on us.

True, true. Hmm. All I can say is that Russia really complicates things.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 7:55 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, true. Hmm. All I can say is that Russia really complicates things.

Yeah, way to be Russia, way to be...

We need to reach an agreement with Russia in order to achive a desireable out come.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 8:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
Yeah, way to be Russia, way to be...

We need to reach an agreement with Russia in order to achive a desireable out come.

Ha! Good luck with that. Russia and China already dislike us; little chance we will be working together, I'm afraid.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 8:11 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Ha! Good luck with that. Russia and China already dislike us; little chance we will be working together, I'm afraid.

And if Russia declares war, BOOM!! WWIII.
Permalink
| September 13, 2013, 8:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Ha! Good luck with that. Russia and China already dislike us; little chance we will be working together, I'm afraid.

And if Russia declares war, BOOM!! WWIII.

Well, if Russia goes in, so does China.

Pretty not good. Though, I feel that the Syria thing will calm before any of that happens.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 12:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, if Russia goes in, so does China.

Naaa. China only cares about N Korea and the Asian Communist countries.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 2:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
Naaa. China only cares about N Korea and the Asian Communist countries.

I dunno about that. China is close to Russia, and they both aren't exactly friends of the US.....
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 2:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I dunno about that. China is close to Russia, and they both aren't exactly friends of the US.....

China also knows their economy depends on them selling us cheap ju nk. If we stopped buying from them in a war, it would hurt them more than us.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 2:18 pm
Quoting Michael K.
China also knows their economy depends on them selling us cheap ju nk. If we stopped buying from them in a war, it would hurt them more than us.

China needs America, but it also hates the good ol USA. I think they would ally with Russia.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 3:20 pm
Quoting Michael K.
it would hurt them more than us.

Yeah, you would imagine that, right?

Well, true. But... They have a LOT of people. And they have a regime that likes mobilizing all able population to the army. Meaning that they hardly care how much it hurts when they have a hundred million men in the army. Or five hundred million. Or more.
Permalink
| September 15, 2013, 3:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
China also knows their economy depends on them selling us cheap ju nk. If we stopped buying from them in a war, it would hurt them more than us.

Well. Maybe. But also remember that pesky debt we have with them....
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well. Maybe. But also remember that pesky debt we have with them....

I was surprised to learn most of our debt is held domestically, but China is our largest foreign holder.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
I was surprised to learn most of our debt is held domestically, but China is our largest foreign holder.

True, but its like, 28 percent over in China. But I suppose a war would void it.....
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, but its like, 28 percent over in China. But I suppose a war would void it.....

China wants an excuse to go to war against America, debt or no debt.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:19 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
China wants an excuse to go to war against America, debt or no debt.

Maybe. I'd say that China would wait until they could squeeze all the money out of us, then try to come back and mop the place up. I think, though, that the gov't is realizing that, so hopefully, we can stop 'em.....
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:21 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Maybe. I'd say that China would wait until they could squeeze all the money out of us, then try to come back and mop the place up. I think, though, that the gov't is realizing that, so hopefully, we can stop 'em.....

We will be able to stop them. As much as this might sound anti-American, we are an empire. We posses almost as much land as the Roman Empire. We posses the greatest army the world has ever seen. Are economy runs the world (many countries would be doomed without us). But this is the odd part. We don't want any more. We don't want to control the world. We are a empire that has freedom and equality. We aid other countries. We defend the weak from the cruel. This is why countries like China and Russia want to destroy us. They don't consider us a military threat, but a threat to the way of there world. They consider freedom an evil system and do not want it spreading to there countries. That is why that hate us. Interesting but true.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:37 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
China and Russia consider freedom evil

Well... Hard to reply really. I believe you classify yourself as "good"?

Are you listening to too much propaganda?
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:40 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Well... Hard to reply really. I believe you classify yourself as "good"?

Are you listening to too much propaganda?

Apparently you did not understand. I am talking about there point of view. Yes, I classify myself as "good" just as you classify America as evil.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:46 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
I am talking about there point of view.

How do you know their point of view so well?
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:48 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
How do you know their point of view so well?

Because are point of view is that they are evil.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:51 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Because are point of view is that they are evil.

Oh. Well, now I changed my point of view to one that says you are a satanist.

Hail Satan, brother.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:53 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Oh. Well, now I changed my point of view to one that says you are a satanist.

Hail Satan, brother.

Well played.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 5:54 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Oh. Well, now I changed my point of view to one that says you are a satanist.

Hail Satan, brother.

I take that as a compliment. As your view is the opposite of reality, I am a Christian. Thank you for the truth.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:37 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
I take that as a compliment. As your view is the opposite of reality, I am a Christian. Thank you for the truth.

As you understand now, this way of thinking leads nowhere. Russians and Chinese are as human as you are.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:51 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
As you understand now, this way of thinking leads nowhere. Russians and Chinese are as human as you are.

Agreed and understood. We are human which is why are thinking is flawed. This was my point from the beggining.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 6:56 pm
The whole situation is reaching it breaking point, either it goes well, or all goes to he11.
Permalink
| September 16, 2013, 8:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Well... Hard to reply really. I believe you classify yourself as "good"?

Are you listening to too much propaganda?

Deus, China isn't exactly known for freedom of speech. And Russia doesn't have a good record; remember Georgia? And why is it that I see, every other day, Putin or Medvedev meeting with NK or Iran, in an attempt to sell weapons?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:47 pm
 Group admin 

Bomb him.


Its one thing to say the US is lying about the chemical weapons. But the UN? Really? THEY are impartial, for sure; how can you just say it isn't true? Blow him up to pieces because of this.....
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jack K
The whole situation is reaching it breaking point, either it goes well, or all goes to he11.

It is teetering.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Oh. Well, now I changed my point of view to one that says you are a satanist.

Hail Satan, brother.

Really Deus?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 5:50 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Really Deus?

Agreed.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 6:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Bomb him.

And be al qaeda's air force? Every time we topple a dictator someone worse come in.
In Egypt, as imperfect as Hosni Mubarak was, he let Christians openly practice their faith, and he fought terrorism. He kept the peace with Israel and the West for 30 years. He met regularly with and kept a cordial relationship with the Israelis.
When the Muslim brotherhood took power, their first act in parliament was to declare Israel their #1 enemy. They persecuted Christians and the only reason they were nice to us was that we were STILL sending them state of the art M1 Abrams Tanks and F-16s.
The new president there dissolved parliament and the courts, and began locking up journalists who were critical of him. Hardly better than Mubarak. A similar situation in Libya. Just goes to show that the Al qaeda and Hezbollah backed rebels will likely be no better than Assad. As terrible as Assad is, at least he is a stable government against terrorism.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Its one thing to say the US is lying about the chemical weapons. But the UN? Really? THEY are impartial, for sure; how can you just say it isn't true? Blow him up to pieces because of this.....

Yeah, he's really full of it.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 6:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Deus, China isn't exactly known for freedom of speech. And Russia doesn't have a good record; remember Georgia? And why is it that I see, every other day, Putin or Medvedev meeting with NK or Iran, in an attempt to sell weapons?

I've already argued this with him In TFOL Private club, to no avail.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 6:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
Yeah, he's really full of it.

True, I was kinda sarcastic, but more I think, the more I realize.


The people want freedom and democracy, right? If the US is interested in the best for the Middle East, I say bomb Assad. Whats more, I think its not long before they go up against Israel; what will he do if he attacks them?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 8:36 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, I was kinda sarcastic, but more I think, the more I realize.


The people want freedom and democracy, right? If the US is interested in the best for the Middle East, I say bomb Assad. Whats more, I think its not long before they go up against Israel; what will he do if he attacks them?

No they don't.
They want peace.

Everyone does.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 9:36 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
No they don't.
They want peace.

Everyone does.

Not necessarily.

The thing with Assad is that he wants to put down his people, and keep the form of government he has, while also keeping his ally Russia.

He would do anything to keep it as it is; the chemical weapons might be doubted by some, but it is 100% clear that he has used force against his people. Is that a peaceful man?
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The people want freedom and democracy, right?

Is that a joke? Certainly not Jeffersonian democracy. The freedom to elect terrorists you mean?
Quoting Achintya Prasad
If the US is interested in the best for the Middle East, I say bomb Assad.

Every time we topple a middle eastern dictator, someone worse fill the power vacuum. See my above comment.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Whats more, I think its not long before they go up against Israel; what will he do if he attacks them?

The Israelis will be fine as long as we keep selling them F16s.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:29 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
The Israelis will be fine as long as we keep selling them F16s.

True, but you have to remember, that he is also slaughtering innocent civilians as well.

Maybe bombing him is too far. But I say, take a stance in which, you go in, take out SAM sites, and generally, prove to these folks that the US is not the evil corporation the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, and, well, the media, pretend it to be.

I suppose Israel would be alright; but then again, its a small country, and most certainly would request US help in a conflict.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, but you have to remember, that he is also slaughtering innocent civilians as well.

And the rebels are hardly better. There's no "good guy" in this fight.

I'm off to bed.
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
True, but you have to remember, that he is also slaughtering innocent civilians as well.

And the rebels are hardly better. There's no "good guy" in this fight.

I'm off to bed.

Sigh. Yeah, they aren't. I would think that at least some militants are pro-US. Maybe back them?

'Night mate
Permalink
| September 19, 2013, 10:44 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Deus, China isn't exactly known for freedom of speech. And Russia doesn't have a good record; remember Georgia? And why is it that I see, every other day, Putin or Medvedev meeting with NK or Iran, in an attempt to sell weapons?

Nobody thinks freedom is "evil". Sounds like 100% American propaganda, since freedom is your first value. And as if your country cares to whom they sell weapons.
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 12:15 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Really Deus?

Did you say that about my actual comment or about what I meant with it?
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 12:17 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Nobody thinks freedom is "evil". Sounds like 100% American propaganda, since freedom is your first value. And as if your country cares to whom they sell weapons.

No, the Egypt sales aren't good.

At least we don't export missiles to Cuba.
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 8:47 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Did you say that about my actual comment or about what I meant with it?

Both.
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 8:47 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Not necessarily.

The thing with Assad is that he wants to put down his people, and keep the form of government he has, while also keeping his ally Russia.

He would do anything to keep it as it is; the chemical weapons might be doubted by some, but it is 100% clear that he has used force against his people. Is that a peaceful man?

Haha, no. I mean, I don't know all the details of Assad, but he sounds brutal. The people may want him gone, but they don't really care for what form of government there is as long as it's stable.
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 8:56 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, the Egypt sales aren't good.

At least we don't export missiles to Cuba.

What's wrong with Cuba? You guys are just mad 'cause they didn't let you put up casinos there.
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 8:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
What's wrong with Cuba? You guys are just mad 'cause they didn't let you put up casinos there.

More of a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis than anything.
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 8:59 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
More of a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis than anything.

Heehee, yeah. That was a fun situation...
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 9:00 pm
I still think a few small nukes would do the job (non-multimegaton nukes DO in fact exist). If Iran complains, guess what. They have nuclear centrifuges. If I remember correctly, those things are very delicately balanced. Any screw up and it could go critical. With them going nuclear, it wouldn't take much *cough*black ops team*cough* to make some 'accidents'. All we need is a handful of guys or better yet, a single F-35. A nice small 250ib bomb with a glide range of 40 miles that we can put in a pickle barrel should do the trick!
Permalink
| September 20, 2013, 9:09 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
nukes

A nuclear explosion is inconsequencial.

Radiation...
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 5:02 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
I still think a few small nukes would do the job (non-multimegaton nukes DO in fact exist). If Iran complains, guess what. They have nuclear centrifuges. If I remember correctly, those things are very delicately balanced. Any screw up and it could go critical. With them going nuclear, it wouldn't take much *cough*black ops team*cough* to make some 'accidents'. All we need is a handful of guys or better yet, a single F-35. A nice small 250ib bomb with a glide range of 40 miles that we can put in a pickle barrel should do the trick!

Well. There was a US-made virus that infected one of the computers operating those centrifuges; set 'em back for years :-)

That said, what about civilian casualties?
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 11:08 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well. There was a US-made virus that infected one of the computers operating those centrifuges; set 'em back for years :-)

That said, what about civilian casualties?

That is a matter for debate. Define civilians here. it depends on how badly you care about your reputation. If you consider half the Syrian population civilians, then that's an awful lot of collateral damage. Syria, probably not the best target to nuke. Back in 2001 with afganistan and iraq, shoulda hit the button.
A few B-2s through there would probably be enough.
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 2:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
That is a matter for debate. Define civilians here. it depends on how badly you care about your reputation. If you consider half the Syrian population civilians, then that's an awful lot of collateral damage. Syria, probably not the best target to nuke. Back in 2001 with afganistan and iraq, shoulda hit the button.
A few B-2s through there would probably be enough.

Civilians would be anyone who is not connected to the government, or to a terrorist organization; basically, your average Joe.

Just doing some quick calculations, if you were to nuke the entire middle east, you would knock out.....a lot of people. Its not a matter of reputation, but what is right, and what is allowed by international law.
Permalink
| September 21, 2013, 2:20 pm
Other topics
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use