Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Syria Thread
123
Syria Thread
2013-08-27, 3:28 AM #1
.
2013-08-27, 5:06 AM #2
This is so beyond ****ed up.

Also:

幻術
2013-08-27, 5:14 AM #3
.
2013-08-27, 5:16 AM #4
Same **** different day.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2013-08-27, 5:23 AM #5
.
2013-08-27, 5:56 AM #6
woo-hoo job security!

seriously though, this just sounds like another boondoggle waiting to start.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-08-27, 6:53 AM #7
.
2013-08-27, 7:01 AM #8
Originally posted by Reid:
Yeah, except this isn't the same ****.


Grow old enough and it will all look the same.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2013-08-27, 8:07 AM #9
Quote:
Session Start: Sat Mar 22 12:47:03 2003
Session Ident: #massassi
[12:47] * Now talking in #massassi
[12:47] * Topic is 'Welcome to Massassi | http://www.massassi.net | Rules: http://www.massassi.net/chat/rules.shtml | Kedri for president! (Paid for by Sine) | WotD: trencherman | Godspeed to those fighting for freedom in Iraq'
[12:47] * Set by Pommy on Thu Mar 20 00:35:19


[20:39] <Blood_Asp> i wanna see those iraqis slaughtered.... after what they did to our troops

Will history repeat itself? Stay tuned on Massassi TV! But before that, there's sport.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2013-08-27, 2:29 PM #10
Yeah, it doesn't seem like Reid actually knows anything about the situation.
>>untie shoes
2013-08-27, 10:13 PM #11
Yes good let's stop Assad from slaughtering everyone and prop up the FSA so they can slaughter just Shiites instead
2013-08-27, 11:14 PM #12
Originally posted by Antony:
Yeah, it doesn't seem like Reid actually knows anything about the situation.


It's still quite a pressing (and actual) topic.

Once again I present The Genuine Scandinavian-Finnish FGR Solution to the Middle East Question: Build a massive IKEA in space, drop it on the Middle East and watch commerce flow! And also the ocean level! And not just due to water!
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2013-08-27, 11:29 PM #13
Well, it's still a much better excuse than we had for Iraq.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2013-08-28, 9:52 AM #14
.
2013-08-28, 1:07 PM #15
I don't post what I post here due to insecurity. I post it due to boredom.

I'm also not sure what theatrics you're referring to.
>>untie shoes
2013-08-29, 12:47 AM #16
Originally posted by Reid:
I actually haven't found a good explanation for why the U.S. supports the rebels, considering that simply toppling the Assad regime would leave a power vacuum reminiscent of Afghanistan in the early 90s.

It's certainly not because American politicians care about foreign victims of chemical warfare. The fact that Obama is itching to interfere indicates to me that we stand to gain something from it. I don't know if that something is resources (e.g. minerals, natural gas & oil), strategic location, etc. but I do think that we wouldn't be making such a fuss if there wasn't something. Regardless, I hope that the American people don't let him get away with another illegal war (damn him if he doesn't seek Congressional approval) & if they do, I hope that the other member states in the U.N. will grow a pair & make a larger than usual stink about it (damn him if he doesn't seek U.N. approval).
? :)
2013-08-29, 2:04 AM #17
I saw our (Finland's) foreign minister say there's already been proof of chemical warfare over there earlier during this civil war, making it suspect that the US is only now making this fuss about having to interfere.
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2013-08-29, 4:46 AM #18
.
2013-08-29, 9:15 AM #19
Originally posted by Reid:
I actually haven't found a good explanation for why the U.S. supports the rebels, considering that simply toppling the Assad regime would leave a power vacuum reminiscent of Afghanistan in the early 90s.


As I understand it, it's not really that we're trying to cause the rebels to win. I believe the idea was to strengthen them just enough to put pressure on the legitimate government to ditch Assad.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2013-08-29, 9:54 AM #20
I may be a bit naive, but, I really don't have any problem believing that Assad has probably used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. quite frankly, governments/dictators/warlords do horrible things to large populations on a fairly regular basis. The U.S. could probably find legitimate reasons to go into any number of countries, including Syria. The problem is human rights and other comparable reasons are NOT why the U.S. gets involved in things like this, if that was the case we probably would have gotten involved in Darfur. However while chemical weapons MAY be a legitimate cover for why the U.S. might take action, it seems highly unlikely that it is the real reason behind it.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-08-29, 10:40 AM #21
I think that the most likely explanation is that the rebels are losing & that the Obama administration wants a regime change, so while they aren't necessarily willing to endorse the rebels (& for good reason) they may be willing to do something that'll hurt the regime, without doing so.
? :)
2013-08-30, 7:43 AM #22
Westminster voted against the UK joining in with whatever the US is planning for Syria.

Which is good because it's a sign that Cameron's probably on his way out.
nope.
2013-08-30, 9:27 AM #23
my thoughts... pull troops from all countries that don't really want us there and let them kill each other
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2013-08-30, 10:52 AM #24
Originally posted by DrkJedi82:
my thoughts... pull troops from all countries that don't really want us there and let them kill each other


I'd be interested to see what would really happen if the United States pulled out of everywhere and re-established a 'hands off' foreign policy again.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2013-08-30, 11:31 AM #25
At the very least we shouldn't move into any country without full UN support. And when I say full, I mean I expect soldiers and equipment in large proportions from each country. If the world doesn't want us acting as the police force, then that's exactly what we should do.
2013-08-30, 12:28 PM #26
What, the war financiers and contractors didn't make enough money off Iraq?

Hey, I have a great idea. Let's kill social security or medicaid to pay for more bombs!
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2013-08-30, 1:22 PM #27
Anybody who, by now, still takes the the sundry statements of the USG on the need for military action at face value is either an idiot, in denial, or complicit with the private military-media complex.

As was already mentioned, there were plenty of chances to fight for human rights in Africa, but for some reason the military is just itching to light up the Middle East. Maybe we should just privatize the entire government and move the capital to Israel.
2013-08-30, 1:27 PM #28
And, for what its worth, the U.S. military could have taken out Assad long ago were it not for Iran and Russia diplomatically standing in the way.

Maybe it wasn't a good idea to **** up Iran's democracy back in the '50s after all. Having installed one pro-West dictatorship after the next all over the Middle East for decades, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that the civilians of the Middle East end up suffering the most causalities.

I guess the Cold War mentality of aligning every country in the world with one superpower or the other has given way to "world domination by the last remaining superpower". If the U.S. has to take over the world to keep us safe in our beds from the communists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists, I guess it's better for all.

(Or at least, better for the private military contractors.)
2013-08-30, 5:14 PM #29
Eh... at this point you kind of have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. kind of damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-08-30, 5:19 PM #30
We'll know the truth in 20-50 years, when nobody involved has a political career at stake any longer. :-)

(And in some cases, only when the information is leaked....)
2013-08-31, 1:30 AM #31
Whew boy. There is some dicy rhetoric coming out of Iran! In reality it is probably JUST rhetoric though.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-08-31, 9:01 AM #32
.
2013-08-31, 11:24 AM #33
Five of the largest arms exporters - the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China - ironically, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
2013-08-31, 12:26 PM #34
Yeah, that's either (not actually) irony, or it's just that they have a lot of military strength.
>>untie shoes
2013-08-31, 12:37 PM #35
What does military strength have to do with arms exporting?
2013-08-31, 1:05 PM #36
actually it is probably that arms exporting has not a whole lot to do with being permanent members of the UN Security Council. Regardless, i think the correct word there was "coincidentally".
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-08-31, 1:54 PM #37
Except that as UN Security Council members, they are charged with the "maintenance of international peace and security". Not withstanding, you guys missed the whole point of my post within the context of this discussion. I strongly encourage you to read it again and try to connect the dots instead of just taking it at face value.
2013-08-31, 3:06 PM #38
again, i think that those 5 countries being some of the most influential is probably why they are permanent members of the security council. yeah, it certainly does seem problematic, yet hardly surprising that they are also 5 of the largest arms exporters. I would imagine they are all permanent members because they are the only ones who could even kind of maybe keep each other all in check. unless there is some outright nefarious conspiracy involving the Illuminati smuggling arms through said five countries into 3rd world countries merely to cause chaos and political unrest thus paving the way for "military action" and later reaping of natural resources.... DEAR GOD!!!! DAMN YOU ROTHSCHILD!!!!
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-08-31, 3:07 PM #39
somehow i think those were not the dots i was looking for.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2013-09-01, 6:22 AM #40
There's no conspiracy. It's been repeated on multiple occasions the fact that Russia has a $4 Billion contract with Syria buying military arms from them. The Middle East accounts for 1/6 of the world's arms imports while having just 1/15th of the world's population. Do they keep buying because of the fighting or do they keep fighting because they have the means to do so (by buying more arms)? If the UN Security Council is charged with keeping peace, then why are they enabling the continued flow of arms from their countries to the Middle East?
123

↑ Up to the top!