Jump to content

US, British and French Forces Launch Air Strikes on Syria


BlueJean Baby

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, classicrawker said:

I don't disagree Soul and never said anything different. My point has always been oil was/ is the reason the US is spending $ trillions of dollars fighting in the Middle East. 

IMHO Trump had little choice but to respond to the gas attack as we can't allow this behavior to become acceptible....my only concern is it would have been better to have definite proof Assad did it before acting.....

 

Not anymore, the U.S. is about to become the oil number one producer in the world. Check google, you're gonna find plenty of information regarding oil production in the U.S. On top of that, the world is changing. Now we are in the era of developing clean energy. If you go to Texas, besides the oil you're gonna see plenty of farms with mills producing clean energy using wind. This is about the U.S. and western allies being the police of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

But don't jump the shark and go full retard believing they care as much as normal people lol. They only care about themselves. There's probably some good ones but they're the exception not the rule. Do you even know about the very real existence of sociopaths/psychopaths? They are attracted to jobs like politicians. 

I don't agree. I do open for some selection of ruthlessness and what have you, but implying they are all like that, that they "only care about themselves" is completely wrong and a dangerous sentiment. And it's irrational. Why do people even believe such things? Where does this resentment come from? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Oldest Goat said:


You're a reptilian, aren't you? :lol:

Seriously though, you are a reptilian, aren't you?

Are you just playing devil's advocate for the sake of arguing or are you genuinely perplexed that someone would think that, generally, politicians are out for themselves?

I am genuinely perplexed that someone can seriously claim that politicians "only care about themselves." Even accounting for some exaggeration, I find it ridiculous. Again, there will be some selection for ruthless individuals, true, like on any career ladder, but that doesn't mean that everyone who ends up on top are pure evil completely driven by self-serving actions. Most of them will be mostly like us (despite tending to have a different socio-economic background). They will feel compassion, empathy, disgust, anger, etc., like we all do. And although there will be political, strategic, economic, etc., limitations to what they can do, they will still be motivated in their political views and actions by the same range of emotions like any of us. 

And yes, there are many examples where global policies are motivated by unilateral hopes and gains, where countries fuck each other over, where the powerful countries exploit the poor. Yet there are numerous examples of what can only be seen as altruistic actions, too, like relief aid, long-term cash influxes, low-interest loans, etc. And while some of these can be seen to be motivated by a long-term hope of trade, this is exactly what we see in human discourse on an individual level: we backstab, talk each other down, fight and argue, yet also help, comfort, and defend each other, often in a tit-for-tat context. So I don't really see that politicians are much different from humans in general. I don't see this complete selection of sociopaths that you seem to see.

And looking at specific top-tier politicians, I also find it ridiculous to think that they have all abandoned their humanity somewhere down on the first steps of the political career ladder. Take Jen Stoltenberg as an example, current leader of NATO and former prime minister of Norway. Is he a sociopath? Definitely not :D He is a normal human being with a remarkable talent for politics. And what about Bernie Sanders? Is he a psychopath or actually a person who truly cares about his fellow men? I tend to think the latter? And what about Hillary Clinton? She is certainly aloof, elitistic, and conniving, but that does that mean she can't be motivated by compassion and empathy, too? 

I find this they "only care about themselves" to be too simplistic, and a dangerous notion. It helps to widen that divide. It allows for demonization. It breeds apathy and indifference. It is a belief that can be exploited by ruthless men like Trump with his moronic "breed the swamp" slogan. It can lead to alternative, radical movement that are at their core misguided. And it can lead to civil unrest when the "us and them" mentality goes so far that they become dehumanized. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

"And it can lead to civil unrest when the "us and them" mentality goes so far that they become dehumanized." What do you mean by civil unrest? 

Oh, it can be anything from bickering and arguing, to protests and violence, to full-blown civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Padme said:

Not anymore, the U.S. is about to become the oil number one producer in the world. Check google, you're gonna find plenty of information regarding oil production in the U.S. On top of that, the world is changing. Now we are in the era of developing clean energy. If you go to Texas, besides the oil you're gonna see plenty of farms with mills producing clean energy using wind. This is about the U.S. and western allies being the police of the world.

Please go back and carefully read my posts where I stated the US does not rely on oil from the  Middle East as it did in the past, although we get close to 10% from the Saudi's...

Controlling the oil supply is power to influence. While it may not impact us  directly it does influence other countries friend and foe which could impact us indirectly......much of the Middle East oil goes to China so controlling or influencing their oil supply is a valuable economic weapon.....

Also keep in mind that ISIS was pulling in close to  $40 million a month from selling Iraqi oil at one point which they used to fund their cause....... 

Edited by classicrawker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, classicrawker said:

Please go back and carefully read my posts where I stated the US does not rely on oil from the  Middle East as it did in the past, although we get close to 10% from the Saudi's...

Controlling the oil supply is power to influence. While it may not impact us  directly it does influence other countries friend and foe which could impact us indirectly......much of the Middle East oil goes to China so controlling or influencing their oil supply is a valuable economic weapon.....

Also keep in mind that ISIS was pulling in close to  $40 million a month from selling Iraqi oil at one point which they used to fund their cause....... 

The Syria problem is a civil war that began during the so called Arab Spring. There are two sides, the people who support Assad and the people against him. What made things worst it was Putin siding with Assad. Then ISIS took advantage of the big mess, making it a huge mess. But now they are pretty much gone from Syria and Irak. Nothing more can be done in Syria as long as Russia is still there helping Assad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, classicrawker said:

Please go back and carefully read my posts where I stated the US does not rely on oil from the  Middle East as it did in the past, although we get close to 10% from the Saudi's...

Controlling the oil supply is power to influence. While it may not impact us  directly it does influence other countries friend and foe which could impact us indirectly......much of the Middle East oil goes to China so controlling or influencing their oil supply is a valuable economic weapon.....

Also keep in mind that ISIS was pulling in close to  $40 million a month from selling Iraqi oil at one point which they used to fund their cause....... 

I'll have to find the article but there's talks about getting China more involved in the Middle East since we really don't need the oil from the region anymore.  Basically, get them to dedicate more resources in the area in order to maintain stability. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, -Jaro- said:

So chemical weapon assembly center in urban area is bombed and no chemicals leaked after bombing :)

Weapon Of Mass Destruction vol.2

 

This was a "one off and done" attack on their chemical weapons facilities.  Why would anyone think this is some sort of "conspiracy"?  You really think that the UN is going to make it up so that they can launch a few missiles at Syria?

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

This was a "one off and done" attack on their chemical weapons facilities.  Why would anyone think this is some sort of "conspiracy"?  You really think that the UN is going to make it up so that they can launch a few missiles at Syria?

:facepalm:

UN did not have any part in this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

1 hour ago, -Jaro- said:

UN did not have any part in this...

Stop dodging the question. Do you think that the US, the UK, and France made up some sort of conspiracy so they could launch a few missiles, at a few Syrian targets....for a total of maybe 2 hours? 

 

And the UN was involved...at least after the fact, and they denied Russia's claim during the emergency security council session Russia had asked for. Basically, the UN approved of the strike.

 

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, soon said:

... Technically this was the second such operation on Trump's watch.  Its described as being twice as large as the first strike.

Good.  Hopefully they did twice as much damage to Syria's ability to use chemical weapons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

,

Stop dodging the question. Do you think that the US, the UK, and France made up some sort of conspiracy so they could launch a few missiles, at a few Syrian targets....for a total of maybe 2 hours? 

 

And the UN was involved...at least after the fact, and they denied Russia's claim during the emergency security council session Russia had asked for....basically, the UN approved of the strike.

 

OK. You're right I am wrong. You have 1st person info and I don't want discuss gepolitics on GNR forum any further...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...