Questions On The Forthcoming Syria Strike.
|
Questions on the forthcoming Syria strike.
obama didn't draw the red line, it's an international resolution outlawing the use of chemical or biological weapons. btw, even the French government is advocating action against syria, that's a huge difference between this and previous conflicts.
i still don't think it's our problem. Odin.Jassik said: » obama didn't draw the red line, it's an international resolution outlawing the use of chemical or biological weapons. btw, even the French government is advocating action against syria, that's a huge difference between this and previous conflicts. i still don't think it's our problem. didn't the french advocate actions against libya and they sent planes and ***then pulled out like 1 week into it? I think syria was either french controlled, or a french colony or something at some point.
I'll go see if there is any accuracy to that statement. well it looks like I was way off base, modern syria was formed from a french mandate after WWI.
so I don't know if they hold any special interests there or what. I'll quit talking out of my ***, for now.
[+]
But talking out of our *** is what we are best known for! Liberals and dickwaving and all the other stuff!
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You just said that this could trigger WWIII and then "the president doesn't need congress' approval to strike" Cmon man, you aren't even trying. You're aflutter with the idea that a liberal president could throw us into a World War. It'd be the ultimate ammo in your toolbelt. Bush started Iraq? WELL OBAMA STARTED THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE! As for that WWIII bit... keep waiting. Kindof like Fast and Furious and that IRS scandal and Benghazi and AP scandal and Solyndra ...oh wait, I forgot, those were all made up to take the focus off of real issues, like what the name of the new pooch should be....or what Michelle should wear tomorrow.... Siren.Mosin said: » so I don't know if they hold any special interests there or what. As for historical connections I only know that France is the depositary state of the Geneva Protocol (1925) which is prohibiting the use of chemical (a french proposal) and biological (a proposal of Poland) weapons. Due to the experiences in WWI such a ban was also inflicted on Germany with the treaty of Versailles. Although I haven't heard Ayrault nor Hollande mention that fact, but I don't watch french news, so that might have escaped me.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » obama didn't draw the red line, it's an international resolution outlawing the use of chemical or biological weapons. btw, even the French government is advocating action against syria, that's a huge difference between this and previous conflicts. i still don't think it's our problem. YouTube Video Placeholder Red line drawn back in 2012 But I guess good liberals ain't got time for anything but "Obama can do no wrong". Back in my day, the president sought approval from congress and convinced a plethora of international partners to take action. With evidence everyone deemed conclusive I might add. Those were the days..... Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Red line drawn back in 2012 But I guess good liberals ain't got time for anything but "Obama can do no wrong". Back in my day, the president sought approval from congress and convinced a plethora of international partners to take action. With evidence everyone deemed conclusive I might add. Those were the days..... The "red line" was drawn initially in 1968. The most recent incarnation was the agreement for disarmament in 1993. Both of those were signed domestically by Republican presidents. Soundbites and partisan rants don't change the actual history of this particular "red line". Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » You just said that this could trigger WWIII and then "the president doesn't need congress' approval to strike" WWI and WWII were both started without a declaration of war, but either with an invasion or action. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Kindof like Fast and Furious and that IRS scandal and Benghazi and AP scandal and Solyndra ...oh wait, I forgot, those were all made up to take the focus off of real issues, like what the name of the new pooch should be....or what Michelle should wear tomorrow.... I have to disagree on the IRS and Benghazi. The IRS scandal had nothing to do with Obama (there is really no room to argue about this, there is literally NO evidence, even circumstantial that he was even aware of it). And Benghazi investigations have shown repeatedly that there was not a blatant disregard for their safety and no credible advanced notice. He also did call it an "act of terror" in his initial statement the day after it occurred. The others are as much a scandal as any presidency, they are just more recent and more publicized. And the lack of transparency is only grounds for suspicion because of the rhetoric he used during his campaign. It's not any less transparent that the 43 presidencies before it. The first family has been the subject of pop culture for decades from the white house dog to first lady's causes. Odin.Jassik said: » I have to disagree on the IRS and Benghazi. The IRS scandal had nothing to do with Obama (there is really no room to argue about this, there is literally NO evidence, even circumstantial that he was even aware of it). And Benghazi investigations have shown repeatedly that there was not a blatant disregard for their safety and no credible advanced notice. He also did call it an "act of terror" in his initial statement the day after it occurred. The others are as much a scandal as any presidency, they are just more recent and more publicized. And the lack of transparency is only grounds for suspicion because of the rhetoric he used during his campaign. It's not any less transparent that the 43 presidencies before it. The first family has been the subject of pop culture for decades from the white house dog to first lady's causes. Benghazi was the administration lying to our faces and the media isn't calling them out on it....I mean come on now, first you say up to several weeks after the event that it was a riot to a youtube video, and not a terrorist attack, then after the election you admit that hey, it was a terrorist attack and what you heard me said before, it was Bush's fault! I mean come on now. Are you that stupid, or do you have your head so far up your *** that you actually made 2 round trips through your ***? This will not start WWIII.
And if anyone thinks that the US *must* strike needs to stop thinking the rest of the world reasons via penis. The only benefit to striking is to prevent precedent, provided sufficient evidence exists as to who actually caused the incident. Without this, the US will be setting a torch to quite a bit of political goodwill from other countries, many of which already see the balance of power shifting away from western countries to eastern countries.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » .... This will lead to WWIII... I hate to mention this but we HAD WW III only we called it the cold war. We are currently in WW IV. Its the cyber war. Problem is the Chinese have been fighting it on many fronts for ~12 years and we only recently recognized the commercial front. No requirement for bloodshed.... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I have to disagree on the IRS and Benghazi. The IRS scandal had nothing to do with Obama (there is really no room to argue about this, there is literally NO evidence, even circumstantial that he was even aware of it). And Benghazi investigations have shown repeatedly that there was not a blatant disregard for their safety and no credible advanced notice. He also did call it an "act of terror" in his initial statement the day after it occurred. The others are as much a scandal as any presidency, they are just more recent and more publicized. And the lack of transparency is only grounds for suspicion because of the rhetoric he used during his campaign. It's not any less transparent that the 43 presidencies before it. The first family has been the subject of pop culture for decades from the white house dog to first lady's causes. Benghazi was the administration lying to our faces and the media isn't calling them out on it....I mean come on now, first you say up to several weeks after the event that it was a riot to a youtube video, and not a terrorist attack, then after the election you admit that hey, it was a terrorist attack and what you heard me said before, it was Bush's fault! I mean come on now. Are you that stupid, or do you have your head so far up your *** that you actually made 2 round trips through your ***? It's on film that he referred to it as a terrorist act in his initial statement, even after Romney made an *** out of himself saying the same thing you are in a debate and being called out on it on the spot, you still believe that Fox News lie. You can make up all the tinfoil hat theories you want about the IRS scandal, but the fact remains that it was not ordered or known by anyone in the administration. It was attributed to a single manager within the IRS. BTW, these conservative groups you are referring to apply for tax exempt status at about 3 times the rate of liberal causes and are denied about half as often, according to IRS statistics. Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » .... This will lead to WWIII... I hate to mention this but we HAD WW III only we called it the cold war. We are currently in WW IV. Its the cyber war. Problem is the Chinese have been fighting it on many fronts for ~12 years and we only recently recognized the commercial front. No requirement for bloodshed.... There was a lot of bloodshed as a result of the cold war, just no outright combat between the US and USSR. /sigh
You will just contradict yourselves just to argue with me, won't you? A world war is a war affecting most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. You said so yourself. However, the Cold War was "fought" between US and USSR. Hardly a worldly event. That sounds like a singular war to me, where it is 1 vs 1. Not multiple nations being found on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters. And where is this film of Obama saying on the day of or within days of that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? I'll give you an hour before you come back saying that Benghazi is just another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory scandal... Asura.Kingnobody said: » And where is this film of Obama saying on the day of or within days of that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? I'll give you an hour before you come back saying that Benghazi is just another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory scandal... I googled "did obama call benghazi an act of terror"... This is his address on sept. 12, the day after the attack. YouTube Video Placeholder I'm sure you're going to try to find a way to weasel out of this. "He didn't point to the camera and tell me specifically..." or some other circular crap. Edit: just noticed your little time challenge, took me 8 mins and that included WATCHING the video.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » /sigh You will just contradict yourselves just to argue with me, won't you? A world war is a war affecting most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. You said so yourself. However, the Cold War was "fought" between US and USSR. Hardly a worldly event. That sounds like a singular war to me, where it is 1 vs 1. Not multiple nations being found on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters. And where is this film of Obama saying on the day of or within days of that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? I'll give you an hour before you come back saying that Benghazi is just another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory scandal... I'm not keen on calling the Cold War a World War in the vein of I or II as it wasn't all out war between nations. It was mainly proxy wars that had global repercussions for numerous nations not limited to the former Soviet bloc, South American countries like Nicaragua, the Middle East and Africa. It isn't the same as Russias massive losses in WWII or the US losses in the Pacific. Quote: WWI and WWII were both started without a declaration of war, but either with an invasion or action. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Are you talking about our assistance to England and the Allies before getting involved? Because we declared War in both WWI and WWII officially through the Congress. No I'm referring to the assassination of the Arch-Duke/Duchess of Hungary and the Annexation of Poland, not specifically how WE entered those wars.
Neither of those wars were started by a country actually declaring war. Odin.Jassik said: » No I'm referring to the assassination of the Arch-Duke/Duchess of Hungary and the Annexation of Poland, not specifically how WE entered those wars. Neither of those wars were started by a country actually declaring war. Oh. But if you're talking about WWI, that was triggered by pacts made between countries that resulted in the war happening. It was a chain reaction of agreements that resulted in countries having no choice but to honor their agreements and take to the battlefield. My statement was originally to point out the hypocrisy King made about Obama tossing this off to Congress when he was the same one who vilified Obama for using executive action too often. So which way do you want it? Do you want Congress to act or shall the President (regardless of party) be able to start military engagements then tell Congress to pick up the check once you've passed the point of no return? Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » No I'm referring to the assassination of the Arch-Duke/Duchess of Hungary and the Annexation of Poland, not specifically how WE entered those wars. Neither of those wars were started by a country actually declaring war. Oh. But if you're talking about WWI, that was triggered by pacts made between countries that resulted in the war happening. It was a chain reaction of agreements that resulted in countries having no choice but to honor their agreements and take to the battlefield. The pacts is an interesting dynamic because of how they were originally conceived as a way to prevent a European war. But that is a topic for another thread. My point was just that some of the largest conflicts in modern history weren't the result of an actual war so much as reactions to small actions like the proposed action in Syria. Not that it WILL, by any stretch of imagination, cause a world war. People in the camp that King is in are generally just looking to point a finger at Obama. That goes back to the discussion about how you can't call Obama a wimp for asking for permission and in the same breath condemn him for being a dictator. Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » .... This will lead to WWIII... I hate to mention this but we HAD WW III only we called it the cold war. We are currently in WW IV. Its the cyber war. Problem is the Chinese have been fighting it on many fronts for ~12 years and we only recently recognized the commercial front. No requirement for bloodshed.... that's a direct insult to 3/4 of the world. that unprecedented level of destruction & death hasn't happened since, and to say so is a good way to forget history & charge into repeating it.
[+]
Is there even a second great Military Bloc? I Know NATO still exists as a military alliance and is expanding, much to the dismay of Russia and China, but obviously the Warsaw pact doesn't exist anymore.
Odin.Jassik said: » No I'm referring to the assassination of the Arch-Duke/Duchess of Hungary and the Annexation of Poland, not specifically how WE entered those wars. Neither of those wars were started by a country actually declaring war. The assassination at Sarajevo you mentioned was performed by a group independet from their government. Austria-Hungary declared war on 28th July 1914. As for the second WW, where nations normally just declared war when there was no open fighting about to start, you are correct.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » And where is this film of Obama saying on the day of or within days of that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? I'll give you an hour before you come back saying that Benghazi is just another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory scandal... I googled "did obama call benghazi an act of terror"... This is his address on sept. 12, the day after the attack. YouTube Video Placeholder I'm sure you're going to try to find a way to weasel out of this. "He didn't point to the camera and tell me specifically..." or some other circular crap. Edit: just noticed your little time challenge, took me 8 mins and that included WATCHING the video. He didn't call Benghazi a terrorist attack, he was broadly stating that "no acts of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation" (see 0:55 of your own video). That doesn't mean that he was calling this an act of terror. Also: YouTube Video Placeholder and (if you have time for it, this is 2.5 hour long video) YouTube Video Placeholder another one: linky how about this: YouTube Video Placeholder Notice that none of these videos or links come directly from Fox News? Odin.Jassik said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » .... No requirement for bloodshed.... There was a lot of bloodshed as a result of the cold war, just no outright combat between the US and USSR. Well yes indeed. Both Korea and Viet Nam were cold war hot spots and not nearly the only ones. But in the definition of a world war, they mention fighting and fronts. They don't say it has to be military engagements. Asura.Kingnobody said: » .... A world war is a war affecting most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. You said so yourself. However, the Cold War was "fought" between US and USSR. Hardly a worldly event. That sounds like a singular war to me, where it is 1 vs 1. Not multiple nations being found on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters.... Well.... let's see. China, the entire European communist block, the entire NATO block, 3/4 of the Moslem countries, 1/2 of Central and South America, 1/3 of S. E. Asia, and about 1/3 of Africa were involved. Sounds like a world war to me. Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » .... A world war is a war affecting most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. You said so yourself. However, the Cold War was "fought" between US and USSR. Hardly a worldly event. That sounds like a singular war to me, where it is 1 vs 1. Not multiple nations being found on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters.... Well.... let's see. China, the entire European communist block, the entire NATO block, 3/4 of the Moslem countries, 1/2 of Central and South America, 1/3 of S. E. Asia, and about 1/3 of Africa were involved. Sounds like a world war to me. involved, but not engaged. Your definition even states that multiple world powers has to be engaged for it to be a defined "world war" Korea and Vietnam were both separate wars (hence the names "Korea War" and "Vietnam War," so, while they may have played a role in the Cold War, they were of and by itself separate wars. If you consider them as part of the Cold War, then you would have to consider that we have been in a never-ending world war since the dawn of human intelligence. Then we are both wrong in stating WWIII/IV because we are (by your definition) still stuck in WWI. Asura.Kingnobody said: » If you consider them as part of the Cold War, then you would have to consider that we have been in a never-ending world war since the dawn of human intelligence. Then we are both wrong in stating WWIII/IV because we are (by your definition) still stuck in WWI. Dont'cha mean "The Great War"? This whole argument is just silly, and redundant.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.