Truth Discussion Time - Page 82

You guys keep forgetting that Trump cant ruin Syria.

Assad, Putin and ISIS already did that.

On April 13 2018 23:20 NMcNasty wrote: Congrats, you guys have reached Ancient Aliens level.

Thats an insult to Ancient Aliens imo

What ruined Syria is the Arab Spring, which is literally the deeds of CIA, so please tell me more.

As we can see the Arab Spring hasn't been successful as neither Lybia nor Egypt has managed to change anything and all of that is because the process didn't happen naturally. Neither did in Syria and thats why the whole region is fucked up.

On April 14 2018 10:12 Spitfiree wrote: What ruined Syria is the Arab Spring, which is literally the deeds of CIA

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

when you're so dumb it hurts.

you're misinterpreting the need of regime changes with the fact that someone else pushed to it, which is what the problem was. You cant make a difference between 2 huge details

Promoting democracy, the horror.

We can see its a horror - Libya is still in civil war, Iraq is rekt, Afghanistan is rekt, Egypt is arguably under a much worse government than before, Syria has been in a raging war. So yes, its a horror for them.

In fact if it was so good 80% of the refugees the previous years wouldn't have been from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Try reading your links btw

No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders. “We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy and research group. “That training did play a role in what ultimately happened, but it was their revolution. We didn’t start it.”

Do you really expect someone to come forward and say that they funded protests which would result in a government change? Are you really that fucking dumb?

Withdrawing from this thread while its on the politics topic, I'd have more value bashing my head into a wall than this. Have fun with the new cold war. Cant wait for the launch of the Petroyuan. Meanwhile I'll continue watching how fuckers like the USA and Russia destroy yet another country in the Middle East while morons from either side support their governments thinking they're the good guys. What a joke.

Jeremy Corbyn said the Syria strike had questionable legality, but he is wrong, it is unquestionably illegal if you simply read up on international law, that's the conclusion that follows.

The war and suffering in Syria can only be mitigated with diplomacy, imo. Missile strikes, without any investigation from an objective third party, and with the risk of escalating a conflict with another superpower is highly immoral, it is reminiscent of the insane decisions made by Kennedy and Kruschev back in the 60's which also almost escalated to a nuclear war.

The rhetoric from Trump and Theresa may is comical in its hypocrisy. They think countries ought to be bombed for using chemical weapons, but they are fine with giving chemical weapons to other dictators with similar levels of savagery. Just look up where saddam got his chemicals from and what he did to people with them in the 1980's, it's all well documented.

I'll just go ahead and answer like Nasty would:

But so you mean its fine leaving another dictator with chemical weapons to gas his people? We should bomb him man, there is no other way around it. Your logic is deeply flawed and of course that we arm other dictators, we are controlling them so nothing bad will happen. [brain explosion]

On April 14 2018 23:51 Stroggoz wrote: it is reminiscent of the insane decisions made by Kennedy and Kruschev back in the 60's which also almost escalated to a nuclear war.

Exactly, the US put missiles in the Soviet border, so Russia wanted to do the same and put missiles in Cuba and Kennedy instead of moving his fucking missiles, he told the russians cross this line and the world as we know it will end... thankfully Kruschev had the senses to back down, the only country that truly is willing to start a nuclear war has been the US, the same and only country who has actually used those weapons.

I think they tried diplomacy at this point, dont you ?

I love intervention but you have to be a lobotomy patient not to view establishment Washington hawks which explicitly lied in very recent memory to go to war and the international organizations that brought you the Islamification of Europe with extreme skepticism

If you actually know Assad gassed somebody then these surgical strikes on air bases would seem like an appropriate measured response, on the other hand what's really happening is probably nobody knows and so the administration just does these missile barrages on Syria (same as after the previous fake gas attack) as the bare minimum to placate hawks and try to walk a fine line where everybody actually ends up being dissatisfied in the end

anyway nothing adds up and if you know what's going on so well it would be good to see more sources and less indignation

rational vs. irrational dictator is not exactly the right framing, it's more that it's not self-consistent

but even if you grant for argument that 40 people died in one gas attack, which I'm sorry if they did, you can't jump to military intervention without knowing what you're doing because the collateral alone (let alone the resulting instability) would result in even more suffering

like I say I'm a fan of intervention but you don't wait until the end of a war to do it, that's called Vietnam

On April 15 2018 05:08 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2018 23:51 Stroggoz wrote: it is reminiscent of the insane decisions made by Kennedy and Kruschev back in the 60's which also almost escalated to a nuclear war. Exactly, the US put missiles in the Soviet border, so Russia wanted to do the same and put missiles in Cuba and Kennedy instead of moving his fucking missiles, he told the russians cross this line and the world as we know it will end... thankfully Kruschev had the senses to back down, the only country that truly is willing to start a nuclear war has been the US, the same and only country who has actually used those weapons.

Both russia and american governments have given orders to carry out a nuclear war several times. The only reason it doesn't happen is because the actual commanding officers in that position never obey those orders. For example in that particular conflict, there was a submarine commander by the name of Vasily Arkipov who refused orders to launch a nuclear torpedo at the american navy. Just one of a few military officers who's decisions single handedly saved the human race from nuclear ahhnilation.

On April 15 2018 08:17 VanDerMeyde wrote: I think they tried diplomacy at this point, dont you ?

It's not like either side has tried that hard, but doesn't mean they still can't go that way. I wouldn't count on it with Putin and Trump in power. They are both people who basically are self interested and dont give a dam about sryian civilians. The burden is mostly on America since they are the greater power and have a more aggressive and basically lunatic style foreign policy towards russia than russia has to america. Especially in regards to anything nuclear related.

we're very historically lucky that the US nuked Japan AND it ended a war

it's easy to imagine other planets developing nuclear weapons during peace and then having a nuclear apocalypse because their planet never experienced the horror and so they wouldn't avoid it the way we did and even look how close we came

On April 15 2018 12:59 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2018 08:17 VanDerMeyde wrote: I think they tried diplomacy at this point, dont you ? It's not like either side has tried that hard, but doesn't mean they still can't go that way. I wouldn't count on it with Putin and Trump in power. They are both people who basically are self interested and dont give a dam about sryian civilians. The burden is mostly on America since they are the greater power and have a more aggressive and basically lunatic style foreign policy towards russia than russia has to america. Especially in regards to anything nuclear related.

I wouldnt count on it with ISIS and Assad / other islamic groups either

On April 15 2018 10:31 Santafairy wrote: I love intervention but you have to be a lobotomy patient not to view establishment Washington hawks which explicitly lied in very recent memory to go to war and the international organizations that brought you the Islamification of Europe with extreme skepticism If you actually know Assad gassed somebody then these surgical strikes on air bases would seem like an appropriate measured response, on the other hand what's really happening is probably nobody knows and so the administration just does these missile barrages on Syria (same as after the previous fake gas attack) as the bare minimum to placate hawks and try to walk a fine line where everybody actually ends up being dissatisfied in the end anyway nothing adds up and if you know what's going on so well it would be good to see more sources and less indignation rational vs. irrational dictator is not exactly the right framing, it's more that it's not self-consistent but even if you grant for argument that 40 people died in one gas attack, which I'm sorry if they did, you can't jump to military intervention without knowing what you're doing because the collateral alone (let alone the resulting instability) would result in even more suffering like I say I'm a fan of intervention but you don't wait until the end of a war to do it, that's called Vietnam

Even somebody who says that he loves interventions isn't as belligerent as the one who calls himself a pacifist lol