Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

  On 9/2/2013 at 4:26 PM, Alcofribas said:

lol @ posting on the internet about posting on ther internet

there was no irony in that post

i know

*posts on the internet*

*postings*

It's pretty amazing that two events (this and snowden's leak) back to back have caused an extreme shift in people's willingness to defend the president of the united states. I think even the establishment democratic party voting left is tired of his antics and broken promises and lies, they will remain mostly silent though until the end of his presidency.

Certainly true for me. The "Snowden Affair", and his reaction to it, annihilated him in my eyes. Mostly gave him the benefit of the doubt up until that point.

even Rachel Maddow seems to be 'turning', probably mostly superficially but her last show about Syria was pretty hard hitting. She went through the history of how the US funded and supported Iraq during the Iran / Iraq war and we basically let them use chemical weapons continuously until all of the sudden we decided they were 'bad' when we needed to strategically saber rattle with Iraq and other middle eastern countries. Although she did as well as her fellow MSNBC hosts express 'relief' that Obama wasn't simply going to steamroll over the congress to push the war through, which to me is just odd. It almost feels the same as getting an over estimate for a car repair and to have that automatic psychological relief when the final bill comes in at lower than the estimate. Estimate high so that people will be happy with whatever amount they end up paying.

I care about people, but I am sick of the USA playing a part in other continents strife. We are a morally and financially bankrupt country fighting wars for no reason other than financial gain at the end of the day, and it's sickening. If people want to blow themselves up and others up in other countries, let them.

The fact that our nose is always half buried in the pile of shit that is global conflict by the time the media steps in it and spreads it around is one of the most disturbing things I find about our modern era. The subject of militarization for the 'benefit of the citizens of that nation and freedom' bullshit just keeps stinking more and more as they do the same things over and over again to make sure this country and the world is perpetually on board with our new age imperialism and 'wars against terrorism' .

These subjects make me lose faith in this world and humanity. We are all better than this, all of it.

the humanitarian angle is the card they often play, but i think at this point it's pretty clear that it's only used as a manipulative tool to get us involved in these countries. It's ok to be morally outraged at the state of other countries affairs, but then using that outrage to justify the most powerful killing machine in history to 'help' the people is when it takes a turn into the absurd. It just doesn't make logical sense. If the US was really interested in military humanitarian aide they would have sent in thousands of troops to Haiti and Fukushima, but magically, coincidentally every time these humanitarian efforts happen they target the exact same countries the US and think tanks have openly strategized and invasion of.

  On 9/3/2013 at 10:58 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

If the US was really interested in military humanitarian aide they would have sent in thousands of troops to Haiti and Fukushima, but magically, coincidentally every time these humanitarian efforts happen to targeting the exact same countries the US and think tanks have openly strategized and invasion of.

It's the magnitude that differs so much: the billions spent and years of investment. We did send assets to Haiti (USAF advisers actually got the airport in Port-A-Prince up and running and the initial military assets used were pretty substantial) and Fukushima, but only to help quell the initial chaos. In those and most other humanitarian missions we're just doing what every other country is doing to help.

i'm sorry josh but mentioning haiti here is pathetic.

  On 9/3/2013 at 10:58 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

If the US was really interested in military humanitarian aide they would have

just who was first on the scene immediately following the dec-2004 tsunami.

go ask a local their thoughts.

  On 9/3/2013 at 11:14 PM, Alcofribas said:

i'm sorry josh but mentioning haiti here is pathetic.

I was responding to John's comment. I would of never brought it up myself.

In fact let's divorce ourselves from bringing up Haitians at all:

http://youtu.be/NiCIyYKJu20

/haiti

  On 9/3/2013 at 10:31 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

even Rachel Maddow seems to be 'turning', probably mostly superficially but her last show about Syria was pretty hard hitting. She went through the history of how the US funded and supported Iraq during the Iran / Iraq war and we basically let them use chemical weapons continuously until all of the sudden we decided they were 'bad' when we needed to strategically saber rattle with Iraq and other middle eastern countries. Although she did as well as her fellow MSNBC hosts express 'relief' that Obama wasn't simply going to steamroll over the congress to push the war through, which to me is just odd. It almost feels the same as getting an over estimate for a car repair and to have that automatic psychological relief when the final bill comes in at lower than the estimate. Estimate high so that people will be happy with whatever amount they end up paying.

you must mean this episode. she did start out talking about other cases of chemical weapon use that the united states did not punish, but rachel's point wasn't that obama shouldn't punish assad, at the 6:33 mark she wraps up that intro by saying we should be outraged about chemical weapon use, exactly like the obama administration is.

well that's disappointing, I guess the honeymoon period is still going for her.

I also don't believe that Obama and John Kerry are 'outraged' at chemical weapons use. They have nice speeches, and seem genuine when they talk about it but I just refuse to take what they say at face value. You seem to state that their outrage is self evident, but the US government cannot be trusted, especially when trying to justify the use of military in the era of the war on terror.

  On 9/3/2013 at 10:47 PM, Audioblysk said:

I care about people, but I am sick of the USA playing a part in other continents strife. We are a morally and financially bankrupt country fighting wars for no reason other than financial gain at the end of the day, and it's sickening. If people want to blow themselves up and others up in other countries, let them.

 

The fact that our nose is always half buried in the pile of shit that is global conflict by the time the media steps in it and spreads it around is one of the most disturbing things I find about our modern era. The subject of militarization for the 'benefit of the citizens of that nation and freedom' bullshit just keeps stinking more and more as they do the same things over and over again to make sure this country and the world is perpetually on board with our new age imperialism and 'wars against terrorism' .

 

These subjects make me lose faith in this world and humanity. We are all better than this, all of it.

The fact that military corporations (boeing, northrop, lockheed, bell, ge, colt, raytheon, honeywell, ibm, etc) run a fairly big percentage of US economy is not surprising that all of that high-tech junk must be used somewhere. Whether those people are lobbying the government just for the money or the pure admiration for death is still a puzzle to me. If it's the money they're in for, then I believe it's even worse than them being just plain psychopaths.

We will happily live in increasing states of poverty and suffering to support the idea that we are all rich and happy.

omg omg this is why we totally have to go kill people omg

to you who want blood... shut up. stop inciting murder. i'm sure theres a law against it.

if you want blood so bad, go there yourself. heck, why even leave your own town to do that?

the rebels in syria who are doing the killing are of foreign origin and bankrolled by UK, US, and Saudi Arabia.

  On 9/4/2013 at 2:15 AM, skibby said:

omg omg this is why we totally have to go kill people omg

 

to you who want blood... shut up. stop inciting murder. i'm sure theres a law against it.

if you want blood so bad, go there yourself. heck, why even leave your own town to do that?

the rebels in syria who are doing the killing are of foreign origin and bankrolled by UK, US, and Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

Most Syrian rebels are Syrian military defectors, their opposition group is called the Free Syria Army, they're about 50,000 strong. The jihadists that the lady in that video is talking about have their own opposition groups which are smaller.

And I'm not for a military strike on Syria, for the record. Obama is saying Assad should be punished, there have got to be other ways to punish him. A military strike at this time would give fuel to anti-American mentalities and risk massive contingencies.

And the killing is being done by Assad by and large, he's been shelling the shit out of them for years.

  On 9/4/2013 at 3:56 AM, very honest said:

And the killing is being done by Assad by and large, he's been shelling the shit out of them for years.

Yeah just keep in mind that when we punish dictators with strikes we tend to kill tens of thousands of civilians.

rachel maddow = roman catholic

  On 9/4/2013 at 6:52 AM, chunky said:

rachel maddow = roman catholic

Chunky-related lol

Hmm, that's odd. I was under the assumption that she's Jewish.