I think we're going to war with Syrian rebels guys.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23847839

"We are ready to go. Like that *snaps fingers*" - US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel

"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC.

The White House said the US would release intelligence on last week's suspected attack in the next few days.

The UK Parliament is to be recalled on Thursday to discuss possible responses.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the world could "not stand idly by" after seeing "appalling scenes of death and suffering" caused by suspected chemical weapons attacks.

And looks like Canada's coming with you guys as well. Guess shooting and bombing more people is slightly better than using chemical weapons. Lots of people are going to get very, very rich from this conflict. 

.

We're just carrying "limited missile strikes". No boots on the ground... yet. 

Wow. I don't really see how they aren't fully committed to it already. 

Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.Person0

The US let Iraq nail Iran with chemical weapons, and told them where to use them at.  It's not about stoping chemical weapon use, it's a dick waiving contest

Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"]Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.chrisrooR

[QUOTE="Person0"]Chemical weapons are a hell of a lot worse then conventional armaments. Giving Assad the okay to use chemical weapons, gives any country the okay to use them.wis3boi

The US let Iraq nail Iran with chemical weapons, and told them where to use them at.  It's not about stoping chemical weapon use, it's a dick waiving contest

 Lots of people are going to get very, very rich from this conflict. 

chrisrooR

who?

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

 Lots of people are going to get very, very rich from this conflict. 

Storm_Marine

who?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

 Lots of people are going to get very, very rich from this conflict. 

lamprey263

who?

You think the NATO countries (most of which are big importers) want to drive prices up so OPEC can **** them even more?

Even in France, Britian, Canada, Italy the majority of people are agaisnt the intervention in Syria and also dont believe that it were the SAA forces whom were behind it or the Syrian Goverement.

According to an LATimes article they claiim to have intel intercepts phone calls of of Syrian officers, that claim of an noneense reminds just like that AlQaeda conference calls just 3 weeks ago that never happpend.

Dont be fooled people.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

 Lots of people are going to get very, very rich from this conflict. 

lamprey263

who?

[QUOTE="lamprey263"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

who?

Storm_Marine

You think the NATO countries (most of which are big importers) want to drive prices up so OPEC can **** them even more?

No but it's great for nations who are big oil exporters like Saudi and Russia. Also BP and western oil companies will make money. I don't think they really care about the general population who will pay for it. Also weapons manufacturers. The US, UK and France have lots of those. I do argee the average person will get screwed over first by higher oil prices and then by paying for all those expensive weapons about to be used though.

[QUOTE="lamprey263"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

who?

CommandoAgent

If it's about that then why take the risk and support a chaotic regime change? Surely they'd be cool with the Assad status-quo and even help him.

Now's the best time to sell the war.

Another one because of illegal weapons. It never gets old.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="lamprey263"] if you bought oil futures the price per barrel might go up as what happens any time there's turmoil in the region for the conspiracy theorists that think it's all about access to more and more oil, at a certain point it's easier just to manipulate the price, and you don't even need access to oil to do thatSir_Graham

You think the NATO countries (most of which are big importers) want to drive prices up so OPEC can **** them even more?

No but it's great for nations who are big oil exporters like Saudi and Russia. Also BP and western oil companies will make money. I don't think they really care about the general population who will pay for it. Also weapons manufacturers. The US, UK and France have lots of those. I do argee the average person will get screwed over first by higher oil prices and then by paying for all those expensive weapons about to be used though.

Why does Russia not want the US to intervene then?

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

You think the NATO countries (most of which are big importers) want to drive prices up so OPEC can **** them even more?

Storm_Marine

No but it's great for nations who are big oil exporters like Saudi and Russia. Also BP and western oil companies will make money. I don't think they really care about the general population who will pay for it. Also weapons manufacturers. The US, UK and France have lots of those. I do argee the average person will get screwed over first by higher oil prices and then by paying for all those expensive weapons about to be used though.

Why does Russia not want the US to intervene then?

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

You think the NATO countries (most of which are big importers) want to drive prices up so OPEC can **** them even more?

Storm_Marine

No but it's great for nations who are big oil exporters like Saudi and Russia. Also BP and western oil companies will make money. I don't think they really care about the general population who will pay for it. Also weapons manufacturers. The US, UK and France have lots of those. I do argee the average person will get screwed over first by higher oil prices and then by paying for all those expensive weapons about to be used though.

Why does Russia not want the US to intervene then?

I don't know, perhaps they have learned to play poker since the end of the cold war because higher oil prices will help their economy a lot.

http://business.time.com/2012/07/05/why-vladimir-putin-needs-higher-oil-prices/

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

No but it's great for nations who are big oil exporters like Saudi and Russia. Also BP and western oil companies will make money. I don't think they really care about the general population who will pay for it. Also weapons manufacturers. The US, UK and France have lots of those. I do argee the average person will get screwed over first by higher oil prices and then by paying for all those expensive weapons about to be used though.

Sir_Graham

Why does Russia not want the US to intervene then?

I don't know, perhaps they have learned to play poker since the end of the cold war because higher oil prices will help their economy a lot.

So the US wants to intervene to make oil prices higher....

And Russia doesn't want them to intervene in order to make oil prices higher...

Either Russia and the US don't agree on what will drive prices up, or that theory makes absolutely no sense.

Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.Rhazakna

Actually I hadn't thought of that. In that context it makes alot more sense. Though I'm still not convinced.

If the U.S. does indeed choose to attack (I hope they don't) it's going to be very interesting to see what Iran does. This could be a disaster.Toxic-Seahorse

Bitch, complain, and threaten armageddon as usual I'd imagine.

Guess shooting and bombing more people is slightly better than using chemical weapons.

chrisrooR

Are you really proud of this line?  Did it actually sound good to you when you were typing it up?  I mean, I get that we disagree on the issue and probably will for the forseeable future, but come on, is this really the sort of logic you feel deftly proves your point?

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]If the U.S. does indeed choose to attack (I hope they don't) it's going to be very interesting to see what Iran does. This could be a disaster.Storm_Marine

Bitch, complain, and threaten armageddon as usual I'd imagine.

If the U.S. does indeed choose to attack (I hope they don't) it's going to be very interesting to see what Iran does. This could be a disaster.Toxic-Seahorse

Iran isn't going to do anything and the idea Russia or China would is even more laughable. They will make a speech about the evil imperialists to win political points with their own populations and then where applicable enjoy the oil profits and weapons sales in private. People shouldn't make the mistake of thinking what they tell the public they want is what they want. 

[QUOTE="CommandoAgent"][QUOTE="lamprey263"] if you bought oil futures the price per barrel might go up as what happens any time there's turmoil in the region for the conspiracy theorists that think it's all about access to more and more oil, at a certain point it's easier just to manipulate the price, and you don't even need access to oil to do thatStorm_Marine

If it's about that then why take the risk and support a chaotic regime change? Surely they'd be cool with the Assad status-quo and even help him.

Iran isn't going to do anything and the idea Russia or China would is even more laughable. They will make a speech about the evil imperialists to win political points with their own populations and then where applicable enjoy the oil profits and weapons sales in private. People shouldn't make the mistake of thinking what they tell the public they want is what they want. 

Sir_Graham

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

Iran isn't going to do anything and the idea Russia or China would is even more laughable. They will make a speech about the evil imperialists to win political points with their own populations and then where applicable enjoy the oil profits and weapons sales in private. People shouldn't make the mistake of thinking what they tell the public they want is what they want. 

Person0

Seriously, dude, they're not going to kill shit, they're not going to do shit, they're a bunch of F*CKING AMATEURS!

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

Iran isn't going to do anything and the idea Russia or China would is even more laughable. They will make a speech about the evil imperialists to win political points with their own populations and then where applicable enjoy the oil profits and weapons sales in private. People shouldn't make the mistake of thinking what they tell the public they want is what they want. 

Person0

I think people are overestimating the importance of Syria and Assad to any of these nations but China in particular. Why would China care? This is good propaganda for them and they get a chance to rant about imperialists but that's about it. In the new Iraq they got plenty of oil deals anyway and Syria doesn't even have much oil or anything they would want. It's a tiny nation with the population of a mere 22 million. The GDP of the entire nation is about $100 billion. Thats less than 1/100th the size of the Chinese economy to put it in perspective.

Its only possible strategic value is geographic but it's not as if anyone is in the position to challenge the US in the mid east militarily anyway since they already have such strong forces in the region. That said, China wouldn't like any conflict in the mid east because they are a net importer of oil and they won't benefit from the increase in oil price. Plenty of nations are in that boat though.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

Guess shooting and bombing more people is slightly better than using chemical weapons.

theone86

Are you really proud of this line?  Did it actually sound good to you when you were typing it up?  I mean, I get that we disagree on the issue and probably will for the forseeable future, but come on, is this really the sort of logic you feel deftly proves your point?

I didn't mean for it to sound as anti-conflict as it did. I want this kind of terrible behaviour stopped, but you need to take the quote in proper context. In the contrast of this minor human rights violation to the obscene human rights violations elsewhere in the world like the state of North Korea. The whole country is a giant ticking time bomb.

After thinking about what I said, and doing a bit more research into the matter, I respectfully retract it. The idealist in me says that the U.S. will be able to rock into Syria, take out Assad and install a democracy. The realist in me says there will always be crazy **** as dictators who use chemical weapons/bombs on innocent people, and that this kind of behaviour is almost impossible to eradicate in extremely impoverished, uneducated, extremely religious areas of the world. Some people want the U.S. to come help them (as they did in Iraq, Vietnam...etc), while the opposition uses it to their advantage. They parade around pictures and information about an isolated case where a U.S. soldier killed a civilian, and the cycle continues.

But yea, I was wrong to say that.

Yeah... because that worked out so well for us in Libya and Egypt.:roll:

Let the rebels win on their own terms. That way, if they are linked to al Qaeda like the Muslim Brotherhood, it will weaken them to a point where a gentle sneeze will push them out of power.

There are no nice options in this one. The US needs to stay the hell out.

Yeah... because that worked out so well for us in Libya and Egypt.:roll:

Let the rebels win on their own terms. That way, if they are linked to al Qaeda like the Muslim Brotherhood, it will weaken them to a point where a gentle sneeze will push them out of power.

There are no nice options in this one. The US needs to stay the hell out.

OrkHammer007

Anyone who's actually been paying attention knows that a Syrian intervention has been in the works for years. Years ago I was hearing that Syria was the new target, since a military conflict with Iran was increasingly unlikely. China and Russia have said in no uncertain terms that intervention in Syria could drag them into it. I'm very skeptical that the chemical weapon attack was made by the Syrian state, it's all too perfect. This is an intervention to maintain and prop up the petro-dollar, which is one of the few things keeping America's economy from imploding. This whole situation stinks to high Heaven.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Yeah... because that worked out so well for us in Libya and Egypt.:roll:

Let the rebels win on their own terms. That way, if they are linked to al Qaeda like the Muslim Brotherhood, it will weaken them to a point where a gentle sneeze will push them out of power.

There are no nice options in this one. The US needs to stay the hell out.

Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Why does Russia not want the US to intervene then?

Storm_Marine

I don't know, perhaps they have learned to play poker since the end of the cold war because higher oil prices will help their economy a lot.

http://business.time.com/2012/07/05/why-vladimir-putin-needs-higher-oil-prices/

So the US wants to intervene to make oil prices higher....

And Russia doesn't want them to intervene in order to make oil prices higher...

Either Russia and the US don't agree on what will drive prices up, or that theory makes absolutely no sense.

There is no question conflict in the middle east makes oil prices go up. No one disagrees about that. You simply misunderstood what I meant by the maybe they have learned to play poker comment. 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/27/investing/oil-syria-military/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]

Iran isn't going to do anything and the idea Russia or China would is even more laughable. They will make a speech about the evil imperialists to win political points with their own populations and then where applicable enjoy the oil profits and weapons sales in private. People shouldn't make the mistake of thinking what they tell the public they want is what they want. 

theone86

Seriously, dude, they're not going to kill shit, they're not going to do shit, they're a bunch of F*CKING AMATEURS!

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Yeah... because that worked out so well for us in Libya and Egypt.:roll:

Let the rebels win on their own terms. That way, if they are linked to al Qaeda like the Muslim Brotherhood, it will weaken them to a point where a gentle sneeze will push them out of power.

There are no nice options in this one. The US needs to stay the hell out.

OrkHammer007

Whoever shot at the UN cars definitely didn't help matters. There is no way this is ending cleanly.

I think they should wait for the UN investigators to collect evidence. The last chemical attack their evidence pointed to the rebels. I have no idea if they did it this time but why not at least wait until they report? The UN inspectors are apparently being told to get out of the way by US officials according to CNN. I remember well Hans Blix asking for more time before Iraq but at least then they waited for him to report back to the UN with some findings. A completely different situation of course but similar in how UN investigators were not given enough time.

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof, that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Warships armed with cruise missiles plow the waters of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Cabinet-level officials hold a National Security Council meeting at the White House Tuesday night. And U.S. officials all but tell U.N. inspectors in Syria to get out of the way.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Obama get the fvck out!

JUST GETTHEFVCKOUT!

lol, can't wait to see Assad's corpse. :)

This is pissing me off beyond belief.  This is a war no one wants; likely the least popular war in US history.  There is no credible proof that Assad is the one who actually used the weapons; even from a logical stand point it makes no sense.  We are risking an outright war with Russia rather than a proxy war with an over all risk of starting world war 3.

Make no mistake this isn't going to be an 'Iraq' or 'Afghanistan'. There are whole other countries who are willing to come to the aid of Syria and they are the ones who are in the right because we have absolutely no business bombing that place.