Military Intervention in Syria.

Status
Not open for further replies.

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Damedius said:
It_is_my_time said:
If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Agreed. I would have taken Romney over Obama or Jill Stein, but still I agree with your premise of voting.

The only way for a "Democracy" to work, is that all those who vote have something in the game. The best bet would be to have a system where all taxes are on one form of ownership/income and only those who pay the taxes vote. At the same time we would want this to be at least 50% of society, so the voters are not left to only the elite.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Samseau said:
Damedius said:
It_is_my_time said:
If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Voting restrictions:

- Must have done one of the following: served in military, paid a net positive tax the year prior, or own land.
- Must be male
- Must be older than 18

This would be excellent. Too bad there is not a land mass out there to start a new countries with this in place. You would be the only super power in the entire world within a few generations.
 

Architekt

Ostrich
It_is_my_time said:
This would be excellent. Too bad there is not a land mass out there to start a new countries with this in place. You would be the only super power in the entire world within a few generations.

I've pondered on the difficulties/benefits of just buying out some land and declaring it a country. Acquiring the funds to do this is the first primary issue...
 

Damedius

 
Banned
Samseau said:
Damedius said:
It_is_my_time said:
If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Voting restrictions:

- Must have done one of the following: served in military, paid a net positive tax the year prior, or own land.
- Must be male
- Must be older than 18

You seem like you have put more thought into than me. I think I heard of a system where only land owners vote and it sounded much better than what we currently have.

That's a better set of requirements than what I suggested.
 

Damedius

 
Banned
It_is_my_time said:
Damedius said:
It_is_my_time said:
If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Agreed. I would have taken Romney over Obama or Jill Stein, but still I agree with your premise of voting.

The only way for a "Democracy" to work, is that all those who vote have something in the game. The best bet would be to have a system where all taxes are on one form of ownership/income and only those who pay the taxes vote. At the same time we would want this to be at least 50% of society, so the voters are not left to only the elite.

The reason why I would vote for Jill Stein over Romney is that she would pull back spending on military. The US wastes too much money on military. On top of that it isn't smart about how it spends it's money. It's all about corporations milking the taxpayer for as much as it can.

Just one example is fighter jets. At this point they have become obsolete. The F-35 is a joke. A colossal waste of money. Drones are the future of air combat. Yet you have many countries spending billions of dollars on them. It essentially corporate welfare or fascism.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Damedius said:
It_is_my_time said:
Damedius said:
It_is_my_time said:
If you didn't like Romney (and he did/said lots of things I disagreed with) then vote 3rd party. Gary Johnson was DAMN impressive and there was a damn good reason both Republicans and Democrats prevented him from being allowed to debate.

Every third party candidate looked better. I would have voted for Jill Stein before I voted for the two main party candidates.

I think this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. You have too many stupid people voting. I would advocate going to system where only land owners could vote. Basically you have to be able to contribute to the system in order to vote.

Agreed. I would have taken Romney over Obama or Jill Stein, but still I agree with your premise of voting.

The only way for a "Democracy" to work, is that all those who vote have something in the game. The best bet would be to have a system where all taxes are on one form of ownership/income and only those who pay the taxes vote. At the same time we would want this to be at least 50% of society, so the voters are not left to only the elite.

The reason why I would vote for Jill Stein over Romney is that she would pull back spending on military. The US wastes too much money on military. On top of that it isn't smart about how it spends it's money. It's all about corporations milking the taxpayer for as much as it can.

Just one example is fighter jets. At this point they have become obsolete. The F-35 is a joke. A colossal waste of money. Drones are the future of air combat. Yet you have many countries spending billions of dollars on them. It essentially corporate welfare or fascism.

That was my #2 problem with Romney. He said we need to increase how much we spend on military. Just idiotic.

My #1 problem was when he proudly said he would support Obama's Indefinite Detention Act.
 

Marco

 
Banned
Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.
 

dk902

Kingfisher
I think the only thing that motivates the West with military intervention is self-interest.

This has been demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Orthodox Catechumen
Gold Member
I think poor decisions made out of self-interest in the past (e.g. Iraq) cloud judgment during cases when there's a clear humanitarian narrative. Any war we're involved in - justified or not - will be viewed negatively as a result.

Syria is just one spot on the geopolitical chessboard. Lots of players involved, lots of geopolitical influence at stake. We only know the half of it.
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
Marco said:
Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.

If that was the cause, we would have intervened in Darfur. The motives of our government are far from pure.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Iranian-official-Well-act-if-US-attacks-Syria

They want Iran. American hegemony is threatened by Iran. The less the dollar is used as a reserve currency, the less power our government can control.
 

3extra

Woodpecker
scorpion said:
Does the U.S. government have a shred of credibility anymore? Who can seriously believe this farce? The idea that Assad would use chemical weapons defies all common sense.

Obama might go down as the most lawless President in the history of the Republic. I wouldn't have believed it possible that a former Constitutional law professor could so shamelessly shit all over the Constitution. He's able to get away with things that a Republican never could. I honestly believe that Bush would have been impeached for the NSA scandal. Hell, any President in the modern era would have been impeached for that, but Obama gets away with it. The media just shrug their shoulders and Congress sits on their hands.

We must come to terms with the fact that we are living under de facto tyrannical rule. The rule of law, the principle that underlies Western society in the modern era, is no longer the order of the day. We are ruled now by the whims of the powerful. They are no longer bound by law. Their decisions ARE law. If they do something, it is legal. That is the new reality. And while the elite have exercised outsized influence for centuries, they have rarely behaved with such naked contempt for the law, and would at least try to maintain the appearance of legality. Now they don't even bother anymore. That means they're either extremely desperate, or so confident in their power that they no longer feel the need to cloak it.

Neither case should comfort the average man. If the elite are so desperate they've become this reckless, that means that the global economic situation is far worse than is commonly understood, and that all the central banking hijinks they've been playing are at risk of coming unglued at any day now. They might see a major war, WW3 even, as the only way out, and the perfect cover for their crimes. Syria might become the modern day Serbia or Poland that draws in the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, Israel, Iran and China into a war that would have the potential to liquidate over half the global population if it went nuclear. There isn't even a word to describe a crime of such magnitude. Genocide fails. It would be more like "globacide".

If their recklessness is caused by confidence in their ability to control the masses, we should also be very afraid. The NSA scandal could be the tip of the iceberg in their ability to monitor the citizenry. Police forces are increasingly militarized. Drones are starting to be used over U.S. land. The precedent has already been set for U.S. citizens to be executed by drone strikes if they are decided to be "enemies of the state" by the President and his advisers. The internet as we know it, and the ability to speak freely and organize into communities like this, poses a threat to tyrannical governments. A false flag "cyberattack" is all it would take to give governments the power to take complete control of the internet, rendering free and anonymous speech a thing of the past. Dissent will no longer exist.

There are clouds gathering over the Republic. Everyone can feel that things aren't right, and that before long, something is going to give and all hell is going to break loose. I wonder if this is how people felt in the 1930s?

I hope I am wrong.




"The best way to take control over people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people won't see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed." - Adolf Hitler.
 

Marco

 
Banned
frenchie said:
Marco said:
Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.

If that was the cause, we would have intervened in Darfur. The motives of our government are far from pure.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Iranian-official-Well-act-if-US-attacks-Syria

They want Iran. American hegemony is threatened by Iran. The less the dollar is used as a reserve currency, the less power our government can control.

Interesting article.
In Drafur there was no chemical weapons. I dont have numbers in darfur but in Syria is over 100,000 casualties already.
I guess there are other motives but if Assad would not have use chemical weapons, probably no one would attack him.
 

Bad Hussar

Pelican
Therapsid said:
...

It's clear who benefits from this so-called chemical attack (I doubt it even is one). First and foremost the Syrian rebels including Al Qaeda. America, the UK, and France who want to topple Assad. And Israel who wants to remove another regional rival and who seems to enjoy getting the U.S. to fight its own wars.

As far as I've heard Israel is on record as saying that they will prefer an intact, but severely weakened Asaad regime in Syria. Syria currently doesn't present a significant threat to them, whereas chaos and Al Qaeda elements on the loose are much more unpredictable and dangerous. If pedaling conspiracy theories I'd rather bet that Israel supported the recent military coup in Egypt. Much more in their interest than toppling Asaad.
 

muc

Woodpecker
Interventions:

1. Use Bombs, Rockets, Ammo to make more Bombs, Rockets, Ammo. = Profit.
2. Rebuild just bombed country = Profit.
3. Put friendly regime in place = Profit.
 

SexyBack

 
Banned
This is definitely happening friends, Saturday or more likely Sunday night.

60-100 cruise missiles from the destroyer in Mediterranean, maybe some long range bombers as well as the UK sub in the area. Not sure how the french plan on getting in on the act, maybe search and seizure off vessels going into Syrian ports.

Why? To send a message that the use of chemical weapons barred by the 1993 treaty will not be accepted.

Why are the UK/US governments convinced it was Assad's forces? The gas used most likely was Sarin or a related agent. An agent that has been used in that area of the world before. The symptoms of the victims clearly point towards Sarin gas or a close related agent. The attack was large scale and the gas was dispersed over a large area. The munition used must have been airburst and large in caliber or delivered by aircraft. The rebels don't have 155 mm artillery batteries capable of delivering such munitions over such a large area in an organised attack nor do they have an airforce. There seems to be very little doubt.

Why did Assad do it? Maybe it was unintentional. Troops firing a bunch of munitions they didn't know was chemical? Maybe he's not fully in charge of his own military anymore. Trigger happy commander at a batallion level?

British and US public are vastly against any such action, regardless UK parliament will approve these punitive strikes on Thursday. They are trying to protect civilians plus the rest of the world needs reminding that the west and NATO is still very much in charge. Russia and Iran can moan and threaten as much as they want, they're being diregarded. As with Lybia there will be no invasion of Syria or ground troops in Syria. The situation in Syria won't be resolved by the impending strikes. I doubt anyone is under the illusion that this would solve anything.

This is all it amounts to: use chemical weapons, your shit goes up in flames overnight. So think very carely about what you're doing in future.

All the geopolicy and ww3 is premature nonsense at this stage. The assumption is that Assad is not insane. The question is what happens if he responds to missile strikes with more chemical weapons or shelling of israel or turkey? I doubt anyone has even considered that, but if it happens Russia and China cannot stand behind Assad anymore, Turkey could invoke article 5 which would result in a definite NATO response and if Israel is attacked they will invade and disarm Syria in less than 2 weeks.

There are no big scale wars anymore because no one can remotely compete with the military might of the west and NATO.
 

...

Crow
Gold Member
Allowing people above a certain IQ is a good way to keep stupid people from voting. That might sound elitist but it's just as elitist as allowing land-owners to vote.

muc said:
Interventions:

1. Use Bombs, Rockets, Ammo to make more Bombs, Rockets, Ammo. = Profit.
2. Rebuild just bombed country = Profit.
3. Put friendly regime in place = Profit.

4. Have said regime in 3 toppled only after a few months in power.
 

Damedius

 
Banned
Bad Hussar said:
Therapsid said:
...

It's clear who benefits from this so-called chemical attack (I doubt it even is one). First and foremost the Syrian rebels including Al Qaeda. America, the UK, and France who want to topple Assad. And Israel who wants to remove another regional rival and who seems to enjoy getting the U.S. to fight its own wars.

As far as I've heard Israel is on record as saying that they will prefer an intact, but severely weakened Asaad regime in Syria. Syria currently doesn't present a significant threat to them, whereas chaos and Al Qaeda elements on the loose are much more unpredictable and dangerous. If pedaling conspiracy theories I'd rather bet that Israel supported the recent military coup in Egypt. Much more in their interest than toppling Asaad.

What you say and what you wish is often different in politics.

Israel has been bombing Syria. They have done this under the pretext of intercepting weapons heading to Hezbollah.

They have also given away oil rights to Genie. A company thats major stockholders include Rupert Murdoch, Jacob Rothschild and Dick Cheney.
 

CactusCat589

Kingfisher
CJ_W said:
Dont you think Russia is involved in this too? You'd think they'd be all in league with each other, as they'd make a lot more money that way (and playing the "other side" while getting a huge piece of the pie)

I mean it wouldn't make much sense to go to war with each other over this and lose more resources than it's worth. They've gotta be all in on this, but playing this game so that the common person doens't know.

I think Russia's genuine in its opposition to the U.S. In 2011, they dumped the majority of all of its holdings in U.S. treasuries, and under Putin's direction invested a significant portion of their GDP in diversifying out of dollar-denominated assets into things like gold. They've also struck up bilateral free trade with Iran, which has a mutual defense treaty with Syria.

Interestingly, Israel wiped their hands clean of our debt as well.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/israel-has-dumped-46-percent-its-us-treasury-bills-russia-95-percent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top