Quake3World

America goes to Iraq to eliminate imaginary WMD...America uses WMD's on iraqis....

Lol?...

GONNAFISTYA wrote:lol @ all this faux outrage from the US over "chemical weapons" being used on people.

I have 4 words for any moron who's participating in aforementioned faux rage: Fallujah, white phosphorus, Google.

There are so many fucking stupid people on this planet pretending to be intelligent it's jaw-dropping. Anything that has the support of a neo-con is a bad idea.

Two words: depleted uranium

WMD is a term for anything now, I heard it being mentioned about the Boston bomb ?. I think the problem is that Saddam had WMD's when sanctions said he wasn't supposed to, wether he had them or not has been a headache for a lot of our governments.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:lol @ all this faux outrage from the US over "chemical weapons" being used on people.

I have 4 words for any moron who's participating in aforementioned faux rage: Fallujah, white phosphorus, Google.

There are so many fucking stupid people on this planet pretending to be intelligent it's jaw-dropping. Anything that has the support of a neo-con is a bad idea.

I don't think many support it, the poll in the article I mentioned only had 25% of Brits in favour of intervention and I think I seen in this thread that less Americans think the same way ?, but what makes this so different to what happened in Libya ?. The chemical weapons is obviously an excuse to get around any UN verdict, using a NATO treaty instead whilst tryna to keep Russia and China happy, I think ?. We have had plenty of grounds to intervene before the use of WMDs if we are taking the moral road though.

I just think that the next regime that replaces it will be just as corrupt, prolly start oppressing another part of the population instead so what's the point ?, but then does that mean we shouldn't give our support as we would if the next regime starts adopting the same tactics ?

I also wonder why fuck does a leader that's under threat from the western world keep using chemical weapons in a war he's already winning ?

lol you think this (upcoming) war has ANYTHING at all with what's actually happening in Syria? Really? You're that dumb?

America needs another war. They'll eventually find one. This is as certain as the sunrise.

We (the people) don't want it. But our government is like a ravenous dog without a leash...

another year, another bout of Western moral narcissism on the part of hand-wringing, concern-sharing, think-of-the-children faux liberals who think that a year without bombs is a year without being able to look at themselves in the mirror. notice how little talk there's been of an endgame to this 'intervention'? of course not - having an endgame would imply that policy was made by actual grown-ups

why is the death of 1,000 people from chemical weapons (when anywhere up to 100,000 people have already been killed in the Syrian civil war) a red line for 'intervention', but the massacre of 1,200 Muslim Brotherhood supporters by Egypt's military junta is just an occasion for tut-tutting and a weak, pathetic gesture from Obama in cancelling joint military exercises?

why were our glorious leaders happy to shake hands with guys like Gaddafi and Assad when they were successful dictators (i.e. their people were kept quiet and afraid) but are now outing them as heinous monsters once their internal repression is no longer scary?

also, why are people jumping to the conclusion that it was even the Assad regime that used those chemical weapons? surely it would be more in the interests of one of the groups opposing them, who are desperate for the US/UK to throw their formidable air power at the regime

(one other thing, about the UN investigation of the attack: the UN aren't actually there to figure out who carried it out, only to confirm that it was in fact carried out. tl;dr - the UN are about to become patsies)

edit: was apparently 1,000 people got gassed not 300. my question still stands though

GONNAFISTYA wrote:lol you think this (upcoming) war has ANYTHING at all with what's actually happening in Syria? Really? You're that dumb?

America needs another war. They'll eventually find one. This is as certain as the sunrise.

Maybe, but I'm not on about all out war. Like I said I don't find this that different to the situation in Libya, just that this does impact on Russian and Chinese interests so will never get passed by the UN and it's obviously relative to what's happening in Syria otherwise we wouldn't have an excuse to be discussing this s a NATO treaty.

IF NK started using nukes or chems on its own civilians you can guarantee we'd be up their back pipe too.

Bashar al-Assad finally responds to the chest pounding from the US government:

Clicky

lol

It looks like the UK has got some cold feet, woop !. The vote that's going through parliament tomorrow will not authorise those Tory bastards from engaging in any military conflict, they want more evidence from the UN investigation that's due by Sunday. Judging from what semen said about the UN investigation being only to determine its use instead of who's responsible then we can only assume that we're keeping our noses out of this one . No doubt Tory boy will find some evidence under his pillow in the meantime though :/

Instead the Vote will be to agree that the international community will be correct in over ruling the UN decision on humanitarian ground and a 'strong humanitarian response' will be required. Seems pretty snidey.

I've dreamt up a pretty shit scenario n all, If crazy man attacks Israel like he said he would, then Israel responds like we know they will, this will garner the interest of those old red foe. I need my passport.

The US intelligence agency claims that they have intercepted phone calls between Syrian government officials where they plan the nerve gas attack.

Then again, remember this?

The phone call seems to indicate assad's regime DID NOT have anything to do with this...meh...

seriously considering renouncing my US citizenship.

at least then I don't need to pay these fucking taxes anymore

100,000 dead, 130,000 more missing, enough refugees to fill Wales in 2.5 years. Low figures put it at 75k dead.

/fuck it. In comparison Libya quotes around 20k dead ?, Sierra Leonne was 50k dead and 3 million displaced over 10 years ?, this is gonna be hitting figures from Rwanda if it carries on

I honestly feel like Russia are being a bunch of cunts about this, Rwanda, Libya and Sierra Leonne were all resolved with minimal military intervention from the international community. Russia not giving support to the UN has allowed the situation to deteriorate into what it has become and then to accuse the West of double standards ?, when they gave support to everything else but their precious interests. Fuck them.

I don't want military intervention btw, I'm far the war mongering and the reason why we aren't all up in Egypts (1000 dead) and Israels (15,000 since 1948) affairs is because those situations despite turbulence are resolving themselves slowly and far better than if we were to offer our help.

If US troops in US > US troops overseas then start a new war. Is it time yet?

Aye, like going to your favourite bar but without your wingman

Take it easy bros

lol @ how the UK actually gets to vote on whether their government joins a war

lol @ then losing that vote

people are talking about it like it's the end of an era for the UK. bollocks. next war comes along, they'll be ready to go with their one submarine

Commanded by Nelson !

All this pussyfooting around.
Bombing shit has proven to be a good strategy in the past.
Who gives a shit about who gassed who. Fuck evidence. Let's just bomb shit.
Makes for good tv.

Yeah, one of my most exciting childhood memories is watching those green infrared nightview videos of Iraqi anti aircraft fire during the first gulf war.

Moar plz! And make it look like the Call of Duties Black Warfare Ops!

Lol at dipshits being kids during the first gulf war...grow up junior...

scared? wrote:grow up junior...

Working on it!

Unfortunately though, you're living proof that wisdom doesn't necessarily come with age.

He's also living proof that men can have vaginas.