Syria

[Apech]

Funny you mentioned this as it caused me to think back when the British were defending the Falklands and your Navy couldn't even find the enemy and had to rely on American intelligence in order to find and then engage.

 

Ha ha ... you used the words American and intelligence in the same sentence. Britannia rules the waves ... that's it don't forget it.

[Uroboros]

[Urpflanze]

Let's have an all-out war; I'm fed up of this monotonous, safe and completely ridiculous half-play. It's better to go bum in a single night than to see your pocket unravel thread by thread.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Urpflanze

[Marblehead]

Sad, isn't it?

[Urpflanze]

Sad, of course, but does it help? I have to cut off on my milk because the tobacco has gone costly. Tomorrow, if the milk goes costly, where do I cut off?

[Thunder_Gooch]

Sad, of course, but does it help? I have to cut off on my milk because the tobacco has gone costly. Tomorrow, if the milk goes costly, where do I cut off?

You'd rather go to war with a country to secure their oil resources, than not have smokes or did I misread that?

[h.uriahr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0KmKSWX3CM&t=10m9s

Official stories and rumors keep swirling and changing.. The latest alleged evidence for another US false flag are some incriminating (alleged) hakt emails:

 

And they send sensitive information using yahoo and hotmail??

 

No way.

[thelerner]

I'm hoping we stay out of it. Civil wars suck. I can't think of anything we could do (or blow up) that would benefit the situation. Though perhaps the threat of us doing something stupid might be a catalyst for peace discussions.

 

Historically how do civil wars end? In the U.S it was by clear victory. Too often each side gets a powerful benefactor and the war carries on, slugging it out, murderously, til years turn into decades. Strangely, for the sake of civilians its often better someone win, even the wrong side, as long as the fighting ends and a slow reform process can get set in motion.

[Urpflanze]

You'd rather go to war with a country to secure their oil resources, than not have smokes or did I misread that?

 

 

My point is - why do I have to suffer because people are going crazy? I don't own a car. I don't support any ideology. I don't harbour any grandeur complex. I don't dream of any peace doves triumphing in the sky after all the ivory smoke has vanquished. All I desire is to be in my ignorant little shell that I work hard for every single day. Dogs are fighting - perfectly fine with me, but why are the bastards trampling on my kitchen garden?

[Thunder_Gooch]

We aren't going to war in the middle east to help the people, we are going to help ourselves in securing their oil resources. That's really what it all boils down to.

 

 

 

 

My point is - why do I have to suffer because people are going crazy? I don't own a car. I don't support any ideology. I don't harbour any grandeur complex. I don't dream of any peace doves triumphing in the sky after all the ivory smoke has vanquished. All I desire is to be in my ignorant little shell that I work hard for every single day. Dogs are fighting - perfectly fine with me, but why are the bastards trampling on my kitchen garden?

[runner11]

According to the US Constitution, the President needs congressional approval before going to war. The only exception would be during dire circumstances where the time taken to get congressional approval would be a risk to our national security. The debate has to do with whether or not a "limited" attack on Syria is considered war. People who say the President doesn't need the approval of congress say that its not war, its just a "military strike." I disagree with this. A military strike with missiles is an act of war. If China shot missiles at a limited number of directed targets on US soil, we would absolutely consider it and call it an act of war. Our politicians are playing a game of semantics to try to skirt around the Constitution, and it is treasonous in my opinion.

 

My second point is that we're not considering a strike because of humanitarian concerns. That's just a novel excuse. If Syria was located in the middle of Africa and they're chief export was spices, I can tell you that not only would we not get involved, but it literally would not even be on the news. Look how long it took to even hear about the state-led genocide that was going on in Darfur. I first found out about it from a banner someone put up in the NYC subway system in 2005. By then, the genocide had been going on since 2003, and the ethnic cleansing since 1991.

 

What's possibly most concerning is that we wouldn't even necessarily be attacking Syria for our own interests. It will be largely to benefit the interests of our allies in the region, as well as the American corporations which are part of the military industrial complex and which greatly benefit economically from the waging of war. I look at war the same way I look at killing another person. If you don't have a damn good reason for it, then supporting it will be on your conscience. You can't wipe you're hand clean just because you live half way around the world and aren't pressing the buttons to shoot the missiles. If you support it, you bear responsibility.

[ralis]

According to the US Constitution, the President needs congressional approval before going to war. The only exception would be during dire circumstances where the time taken to get congressional approval would be a risk to our national security. The debate has to do with whether or not a "limited" attack on Syria is considered war. People who say the President doesn't need the approval of congress say that its not war, its just a "military strike." I disagree with this. A military strike with missiles is an act of war. If China shot missiles at a limited number of directed targets on US soil, we would absolutely consider it and call it an act of war. Our politicians are playing a game of semantics to try to skirt around the Constitution, and it is treasonous in my opinion.

 

My second point is that we're not considering a strike because of humanitarian concerns. That's just a novel excuse. If Syria was located in the middle of Africa and they're chief export was spices, I can tell you that not only would we not get involved, but it literally would not even be on the news. Look how long it took to even hear about the state-led genocide that was going on in Darfur. I first found out about it from a banner someone put up in the NYC subway system in 2005. By then, the genocide had been going on since 2003, and the ethnic cleansing since 1991.

 

What's possibly most concerning is that we wouldn't even necessarily be attacking Syria for our own interests. It will be largely to benefit the interests of our allies in the region, as well as the American corporations which are part of the military industrial complex and which greatly benefit economically from the waging of war. I look at war the same way I look at killing another person. If you don't have a damn good reason for it, then supporting it will be on your conscience. You can't wipe you're hand clean just because you live half way around the world and aren't pressing the buttons to shoot the missiles. If you support it, you bear responsibility.

 

 

The Nuremberg Tribunals conducted after WWII settled the issue as to what is a war crime. The first trial was in regards to unprovoked attacks on sovereign countries. That became U.S. law as well as international law. Those laws still stand, regardless as to what any President past or present claims.

Edited September 5, 2013 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

[ralis]

For further reference.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_law

[h.uriahr]

There's nothing that the individual can do to prevent this. Prevention in this case =waking up.

Make others aware of their individual capability. I've been feeling a lot of friction here lately. Something is about to break loose.

In the times to come its very important to stay positive.

[Thunder_Gooch]

War on Syria will draw in Russia, trigger World War III: Analyst

 

 

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/21/314820/attack-on-syria-will-instigate-wwiii/

 

 

As Worries Over the Power Grid Rise, a Drill Will Simulate a Knockout Blow

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/us/as-worries-over-the-power-grid-rise-a-drill-will-simulate-a-knockout-blow.html?_r=4&

Edited September 5, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[Trash Filter]

I agree. This war will be another set up war. i wouldn't be surprised even the chemical attack and the beginning is a set up. Simply business strategy for the big power players trying to keep control on the earth, oil and location.

If anyone is a soldier don't waste your time fighting here.

[Thunder_Gooch]

Syria crisis: China joins Russia in opposing military strikes

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes

 

 

Russia,...warned the United States of an impending catastrophe that may cause a world war.

 

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/503876/20130905/obama-senate-syria-crisis-world-war-3.htm#.UiiPZD8ufGk

[h.uriahr]

Place your trays and seats in the upright position and buckle your seat belts as we prepare for take off.

 

It's about to get real people.

[Aetherous]

Lets watch Congress vote it down, and Obama rightfully obey the nation he is supposed to serve.

[Thunder_Gooch]

Lets watch Congress vote it down, and Obama rightfully obey the nation he is supposed to serve.

With every fiber of my being I hope this fails to pass through congress, and Obama backs down.

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-04/syria-attack-has-china-outraged-at-u-s-.html

 

Syria Attack Has China Outraged -- at U.S.

 

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes

 

 

Syria crisis: China joins Russia in opposing military strikes

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/putin-warns-military-action-syria

 

 

 

 

'We have our plans': Vladimir Putin warns US against Syria military action

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/05/russia-warns-of-nuclear-disaster-if-syria-is-hit/

 

Russia Warns Of Nuclear Disaster If Syria Is Attacked

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23969821

 

Syria Russia relationship 'still firm' says BBC's Bowen

 

Russia's President Vladimir Putin warned that action without UN approval would be "an aggression".

 

 

He said ties between Russia and Syria remain strong.

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-ships-idUSBRE97U01Z20130831

 

Sixth U.S. ship now in eastern Mediterranean 'as precaution'

 

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/russian-warships-cross/803774.html

 

Russian warships cross Bosphorus, en route to Syria

Edited September 6, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[Thunder_Gooch]

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SYyFjt43No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://newsrescue.com/wwiii-report-china-sends-warships-to-coast-of-syria/

 

 

WWIII: Report – China Sends Warships to Coast of Syria

Edited September 6, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[Thunder_Gooch]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601648/russia-cancels-syria-lobbying-mission-to-d.c.-more-russian-war-ships-reportedly-head-for-mediterranean/

 

Russia cancels Syria lobbying mission to D.C.; More Russian war ships reportedly head for Mediterranean

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-russia-ship-idUSBRE98509T20130906

 

Russia is sending the naval landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov to the eastern Mediterranean, state news agency Interfax said on Friday, reinforcing its presence near Syria.

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/chinese-russian-warships-and-marines-heading-to-syrian-waters

 

 

Chinese, Russian warships and Marines heading to Syrian waters

Edited September 6, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[Basher]

Chinese, Russian warships and Marines heading to Syrian waters

 

Wild Co-incidence, do you think ?

[Thunder_Gooch]

yup

 

 

Wild Co-incidence, do you think ?