Pages:
Author

Topic: Plausibility of Syria strike / Sparking WWIII ? - page 2. (Read 3261 times)

legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Well how the Russians are playing it they should just borrow a page from the US playbook and call it a UN crisis of human rights, against the government of Syria since the UN is not going to move on this issue for now.
hero member
Activity: 1492
Merit: 763
Life is a taxable event
There is one point that I agree with. The use of chemical weapons in warfare can't go unpunished.

That being said further investigation needs to be done by a reliable third party with absolute honesty and openness to the public.

Another war is just what the US economy needs.

Even the missiles cost way too much money.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 502
I'm not one to dab with politics nor glen beck, but hes right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG4gXCRyv_A

Make love, not war.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
With just a few battleships and people inside U.S. intelligence leaking their positions it might not be wise to strike.

The question is: Can America afford attacking Syria with more than that?

Drones are relatively inexpensive.
They already blew a lot of money feeding rebels and their spies.
You don't just walk away.

What it boils down to is, when do America's lenders cut them off?  America doesn't have squat anymore, and they won't ever have it again until they literally collapse and start society over again.  America's entire military is borrowed from people who expect them to repay them someday, or perhaps are knowingly fueling America until they destroy themselves--anyway, America hasn't been able to afford any war for quite some time, and the more wars they get into, the more debt they accrue, the faster their demise, so of course it's in the interest of other nations to continue fueling America's war games.

So, yes, America can always 'afford' more wars, until other nations agree that it's time to pull the rug from under them, and then it's game over.  If America won't use more of its military against Syria, it's because they're saving it for bigger fish, and so Syria is just a distraction at that point.  But remember all those nuke-carrying submarines America has across the globe in unknown spots of the ocean; wonder if they'll use those in a last-ditch effort to retain control once the rug is pulled, or if that's one reason why the rug hasn't been by now.
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 500
FREE $50 BONUS - STAKE - [click signature]
With just a few battleships and people inside U.S. intelligence leaking their positions it might not be wise to strike.

The question is: Can America afford attacking Syria with more than that?

Drones are relatively inexpensive.
They already blew a lot of money feeding rebels and their spies.
You don't just walk away.
member
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
Plausible? It's almost definite a military strike of some sort will take place.... the fact that Obama has come out and mentioned that he ought to go back and ask congress to get their opinion means nothing.  They will strike without going to congress.  A big F@CK U to the very essence of democracy in itself. 

What happened to governments being elected on democratic values?  The opinions of the american people dont even come into the picture.  How sad. 
The politicans whom the american people 'trust' are sadly untrustworthy. 

Iraq, we were fed the same b.s
Libya, much of the same.
Syria... here we go again... same olde b.s being fabricated and green lights being given regardless of what the majority of people think. 

Democrafuckingwhat?
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1021
With just a few battleships and people inside U.S. intelligence leaking their positions it might not be wise to strike.

The question is: Can America afford attacking Syria with more than that?
b!z
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1010
CIA probably did the Chemical attack to give der Führer Obama reason to start war with Syria.

I think the CIA is working for the president (at least in the US)
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
CIA probably did the Chemical attack to give der Führer Obama reason to start war with Syria.
hero member
Activity: 1492
Merit: 763
Life is a taxable event
Now that US concludes that Assad regime used chemical weapons, what do you think would be course of action by US.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/obama-concludes-assad-carried-out-chemical-attack

The Russians save the day by adding more Risperidone to the US' water supply?

I was given risperidone for Bipolar depression. There is something seriously wrong about psychiatrists in the US.


I bet the US will fuck Syria up like it has done with so many countries before. Do they have oil? Who knows? Is the US government corrupt? Hell yes.


If there is the slightest corporate interest to destabilize the current system in Syria you can be almost certain that the US government and military will be steered in this course of action.
It's only a matter of time until corporate interests become clear.


What if it was a corporation that did the chemical strikes?    US intelligence says they are not certain the regime used the weapons and I really doubt that the rebels did it.

As much as I hate conspiracy theories based on no evidence this needs to be investigated further. The US government needs to be much more open to review about the events that happened in Syria. We also need more well organized journalists that we can trust on the ground.
full member
Activity: 171
Merit: 100
Obama should attack Syria and kill most of them.

Here in Nigeria, nobody likes Syrian people.
Obama has Nigeria's support.

Troll..
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Obama should attack Syria and kill most of them.

Here in Nigeria, nobody likes Syrian people.
Obama has Nigeria's support.
b!z
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1010
Iraq war version 2.0 will happen
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Now that US concludes that Assad regime used chemical weapons, what do you think would be course of action by US.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/obama-concludes-assad-carried-out-chemical-attack


Cruise missile strike(s).
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 500
FREE $50 BONUS - STAKE - [click signature]
@BunworthBanshee: only uninformed retards believe the chemical weapons attack was launched by Assad. You know, even the ONU said there was no proof that he did it...

For him to use those weapons would be so fucking illogical, yet some will believe that. Or pretend to believe that, does not matter really.


I see it like that: mercenaries rebels are losing too much money their ground so their masters resort to staging a chemical attack, maybe even pay some loyalist soldiers to do that. And the shitstorm begins.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
By page 2 assad will become the saviour of mankind  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
@BunworthBanshee: only uninformed retards believe the chemical weapons attack was launched by Assad. You know, even the ONU said there was no proof that he did it...

I say it is likely. The strategy seems to be an attempt to bait Iran into joining the conflict in order to justify full scale invasion of Iran.

Don't think the president wants to be impeached. Doubtful that we'll see American boots on the ground. Wouldn't surprise me to see some Drones going in though. What a mess this is turning out to be.

Iran might be the final goal, but its just too early. I'd bet that before trying to go against Iran the USA needs first to control also Syria, Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan.
full member
Activity: 188
Merit: 100
I say it is likely. The strategy seems to be an attempt to bait Iran into joining the conflict in order to justify full scale invasion of Iran.

Don't think the president wants to be impeached. Doubtful that we'll see American boots on the ground. Wouldn't surprise me to see some Drones going in though. What a mess this is turning out to be.
newbie
Activity: 51
Merit: 0
I say it is likely. The strategy seems to be an attempt to bait Iran into joining the conflict in order to justify full scale invasion of Iran.
Full scale invasion of Iran? Yeah, and next full scale invasion of China and American walks on the sun.
member
Activity: 82
Merit: 10
I find it amazing how easy it is for the world to believe that Assad done this. Just put up a few images and that's it fact. Have any of you got family in Syria? NO because its bullshit this was not Assad it was the so called rebels.

Ask yourself this, if you where Assad and you knew only to well, that the war mongering US and its puppy dog allies where only itching to invade, why? what possible reason would you use the one thing that would give them reason to attack? Honestly would you do it if you where him? Think about it?

This is just pure propaganda bulshit, most of the so called rebels in Syria are Muslim extremists looking to build a state that will harbor anti western terrorists, the same people will gladly get in a plane tomorrow and kill any US or westerner.

WAKE UP and stop just believing the box in the corner of your rooms. Its all about Iran, remove Iran's No.1 ally and she is weaker. Ready for concurring.

Oh and mark my word's next year after they Finnish with Syria. No doubt Iran will start using Weapons Of Mass destruction. Now where have I heard that before?HuhHuhHuh

Look at who your helping bring freedom and democracy to, WAKE UP, this is nothing but an attempt to save the petro dollar.
http://youtu.be/TaLsIBHEvXI

and before anybody says anything i have first hand experience from my family in Turkey, who contrary to western media, most people in Turkey do not support the Rebels, nor Assad, just the people of Syria.

Pages:
Jump to: