46
   

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 12:55 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
You and JTT dont live in the real world. Like it or not the realities are that there are people out there that believe they have the right to do anything they think is right no matter how many laws are passed declaring them wrong. In the real world we have to protect ourselves. You two live in a fantasy world where you believe only your opinion is the right one. Thank God you arnt in position to do as you think is the right thing.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 12:58 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Like it or not the realities are that there are people out there that believe they have the right to do anything they think is right no matter how many laws are passed declaring them wrong.


Rabel: baaa baaaa, baaaa.

You've just described the United States in a nutshell.

Maybe you're not so dumb after all.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 01:08 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Thank God you arnt in position to do as you think is the right thing.


You mean like stopping the US from murdering millions, killing children the world over, illegally invading poor countries, spreading WMDs all over the world, using chemical weapons on innocents, hiring thugs to torture, rape and murder, supporting dictators around the world in order to steal the bread from people's mouths, supporting dictators around the world in order to prevent people from pursuing life, liberty and happiness, ... .

You mean stuff like that, Rabel?
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 01:08 pm
@RABEL222,
When and how is your plan to deploy a weapon of mass destruction? Is it a plan to deliver several of them?
Can you give details of what goes thru your mind as each goes off?
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 01:18 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
You tell em Peter. Great to see you put your tuppence/two cents in.
keeping them on their toes.

Salute!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 01:48 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
You and JTT dont live in the real world. Like it or not the realities are that there are people out there that believe they have the right to do anything they think is right no matter how many laws are passed declaring them wrong.


Really, Rabel?

Quote:
The Startling Size of US Military Operations in Africa
The Pentagon's Africa Command will tell you there's one military base on the entire continent. Don't believe them.
—By Nick Turse | Fri Sep. 6, 2013 3:00 AM PDT


They're involved in Algeria and Angola, Benin and Botswana, Burkina Faso and Burundi, Cameroon and the Cape Verde Islands. And that's just the ABCs of the situation. Skip to the end of the alphabet and the story remains the same: Senegal and the Seychelles, Togo and Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia. From north to south, east to west, the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, the heart of the continent to the islands off its coasts, the US military is at work. Base construction, security cooperation engagements, training exercises, advisory deployments, special operations missions, and a growing logistics network, all undeniable evidence of expansion—except at US Africa Command.

To hear AFRICOM tell it, US military involvement on the continent ranges from the miniscule to the microscopic. The command is adamant that it has only a single "military base" in all of Africa: Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. The head of the command insists that the US military maintains a "small footprint" on the continent. AFRICOM's chief spokesman has consistently minimized the scope of its operations and the number of facilities it maintains or shares with host nations, asserting that only "a small presence of personnel who conduct short-duration engagements" are operating from "several locations" on the continent at any given time.

With the war in Iraq over and the conflict in Afghanistan winding down, the US military is deploying its forces far beyond declared combat zones. In recent years, for example, Washington has very publicly proclaimed a "pivot to Asia," a "rebalancing" of its military resources eastward, without actually carrying out wholesale policy changes. Elsewhere, however, from the Middle East to South America, the Pentagon is increasingly engaged in shadowy operations whose details emerge piecemeal and are rarely examined in a comprehensive way. Nowhere is this truer than in Africa. To the media and the American people, officials insist the US military is engaged in small-scale, innocuous operations there. Out of public earshot, officers running America's secret wars say: "Africa is the battlefield of tomorrow, today."


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/us-military-bases-africa
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 01:56 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
In the real world we have to protect ourselves.


You idiots are like a bunch of children, with absolutely none of the good aspects found within. You are such quivering little blobs of putty; your governments and your media mold you at will and you just keep coughing up that same tired old propaganda, along with the funds necessary to commit these varied atrocities.

Doesn't that make you proud, Rabel et al?

Quote:

The biggest threat to America? The size of its own military budget

Don't be fooled by terror alerts and dire warnings: the world in general is a safer place than ever and the US in particular

Michael Cohen

Dear America: I know you've got a lot on your mind these days. Work is a drag; the kids are still on summer vacation; the car is making an awful racket (it's probably the muffler); you've got to clean out the gutters; your anniversary is right around the corner and you can't think of a thing to buy; you really need to see the dentist. It's always something, right?

Well, here's one piece of good news: you're pretty safe.

Sure, Obama had to cancel that summit with Putin, and al-Qaida might be plotting to attack an overseas embassy, and there is that guy down the block who is just a little too into guns, and truth be told, you might want hit the gym a bit more often (just sayin') … but otherwise, you're pretty good.

Don't believe me? Check out what Michael Morell, the No2 man at the CIA, had to say about the threats facing America in this recent interview with the Wall Street Journal. If anyone knows about foreign threats, it's gotta be this guy, right? He's a big muckety-muck at the Central Intelligence Agency. He gets to see everything; even that stuff Snowden leaked.

What he's most worried about? Syria.

Hasn't there been a civil war going on there for three years? Why is that a threat to the United States? Well, according to Morell, the "risk is that the Syrian government, which possesses chemical and other advanced weapons, collapses and the country becomes al-Qaida's new haven, supplanting Pakistan." Putting aside that such a scenario is a slim possibility, even if it did happen, it wouldn't actually a direct threat to the United States. It's not as if Syrian Islamist rebels are yelling "Damascus today, Des Moines tomorrow".

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/biggest-threat-america-size-military-budget
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 02:00 pm
@RABEL222,
You folks are sick sick sick, Rabel et al.

Quote:
The U.S. spent more on defense in 2012 than did the countries with the next 10 highest defense budgets combined
April 12, 2013
- See more at:

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison#sthash.o3PuraZx.dpuf



See also,

http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 07:22 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
It will never "go off" until a rogue state uses it against us.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 07:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It will never "go off" until a rogue state uses it against us.


History tells us you are a liar, CI, or you envision the US using WMD against Americans, which isn't really an impossible situation at all.
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 09:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But there is a plan to use it? What is the plan? When do you decide its ok to use weapons of mass destruction? How many do you plan to use? When do you plan to use it? If you have a weapon of mass destruction surely you have plan for it right? What is the premeditation before using it? How many do you plan to wound or kill? Is there a certain number ? Can you tell me in detail what are you thinking about when you make these plans to use weapons of mass destruction? What do you think about when you can see in your mind the first one going off? Do you hold yourself accountable for any damages you may have caused once you detonate the weapon of mass destruction?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 09:45 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:
When and how is your plan to deploy a weapon of mass destruction? Is it a plan to deliver several of them?
Can you give details of what goes thru your mind as each goes off?

If the US uses thermonuclear weapons, the attack will likely involve hundreds if not thousands of warheads.

You're starting to sound like Eisenhower. He was ever so tiresome when it came to thermonuclear weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 09:52 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:
But there is a plan to use it?

There are indeed warplans for the use of America's nuclear arsenal.

The plans are very highly classified, and no one who posts on A2K knows what they are (especially the current plans).

And if someone here did happen to know, they'd never talk about it or even let on that they knew. Likely they wouldn't even post in a thread where it was being discussed.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 09:58 pm
@oralloy,
So you argument is that given a certain condition it is ok to use weapons of mass destruction?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:00 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
The "plan" is to use it in the event a rogue state uses it against us. We have more powerful nukes than any rogue state, and the fear of personal destruction will prevent them from using theirs against us.

That "fear" is a pretty strong defense for our country. Even Russia backed down when they installed missiles in Cuba. They knew we could wipe them off the map.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What would qualify as rogue state? Is it one that is not complying by the majority votes of the members? Or is it when there is a conflict between 2 members? Which one would it be ok to use weapons of mass destruction?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:05 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Iran, North Korea, Pakistan.....just to name a few.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do approve for all states to carry this "we have a conflict so now we are exempt and we can use weapons of mass destruction" policy for all member states? Or the ones that you chose to pick? What is the qualifications for a state to be exempt? Is there a qualification?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:19 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
No; just that all states with or developing nukes and biological weapons reduce the number in their possession on a time line to eliminate all WMD's.

Any country that does not agree to the reduction should be isolated in every way; political and economic.

From the AP.
Quote:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.S. and European diplomats welcomed a "significant shift" in Iran's attitude at talks on Thursday aimed at resolving the impasse over Tehran's disputed nuclear activities. Iran said it was eager to dispel the notion that it is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and to get international sanctions lifted as fast as possible.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif shook hands and sat next to each other at the meeting with five other world powers. Kerry leaned over to Zarif as the meeting was ending and said: "Shall we talk for a few minutes." They then had an unexpected one-on-one meeting.

It was the highest-level direct contact between the United States and Iran in six years.


So, there's hope.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What does that mean? "Reduce"? I hear a lot about reducing stockpiles.
Is it means now you're just planning on how to use 10,000 weapons of mass destruction? 100? 10? 1? How many weapons of mass destruction should a member Nation premeditate on how to use it?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 09:50:41