Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's called Libertarianism.
That's more "no lifes matter", really.
Originally posted by jaden101
But I guess I also meant they would kill more Syrians in 1 day of cruise nipple attacks if they were to intervene.I don't know. It was late. I was yammering.
Cruise Nipple Attacks....epic
Originally posted by Omega Visioniyo, is the impending slap congress approving or disapproving attacks?
So, one week before congress comes back into session, and even then it will probably be a few days before they vote.Apparently right now Syria is experiencing something akin to what Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother experienced when Marshall got a free slap to be cashed in at any time.
Approving, obviously.
I'd be surprised if congress didn't approve it. Most of the democrats are on board with Obama, and as for the Republicans, only Rand Paul's libertarian wing (which isn't very large) are outright against striking at Assad, while the two biggest Republican senators, McCain and Graham, are both hawkish supporters of greater involvement in Syria. One commentator put it this way: for many Republicans tempted to vote against the strikes just out of spite, they must remember that in the eyes of many a vote against Obama will be a vote for Assad and for Iran.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
^wtf
Originally posted by Lestov16oh please... No need for this righteous bs. As if US isnt in it for selfish reasons. Truth is noone gives a crap about the Syrian people, it's always about the selfish reasons. Russia will keep backing Asad as long as it suits their interest. Similarly US would look the other way if it suits theirs no matter how many people die in the process, won't be the first time. Still no definite proof of Asad using chemical weapons and I personally find it hard to believe he'd do it with UN inspectors snooping around, dumbest decision he could possibly make and he's no idiot. Of all time why wait till now to give the world an excuse to start a war agiants him? If anything it benefits the so called opposition, rushing in to help the mercenaries won't solve the problem in Syria.
It may not be just spiting the US, but they are still dicking over lives for their own selfish reasons.
Originally posted by SamZED
As if US isnt in it for selfish reasons. Truth is noone gives a crap about the Syrian people, it's always about the selfish reasons.
Why the false dilemma? That the United States may have an interest in toppling the Asaad regime doesn't mean there aren't legitimate humanitarian concerns for the Syrian people. Putin, on the other hand, is a pure socipath, as he's demonstrated...throughout his entire life.
Russia will keep backing Asad as long as it suits their interest.
Isn't it mightily inconvenient that Russia's interests always happen to involve condoning the world's most repressive governments? Like...its own?
Originally posted by Master HanPutin is just another power greedy ruler who cares about whats good for him. Whether he's a sociopath or not.. dont see what diference does it make when it comes to big politics. Dont see US showing legitimite humanitarian concerns towards the Saudi people, the same Saudi Arabia where women arent even allowed to drive and people get opressed worse than in Syria. But hey US and SA are buds so who cares? Or when it vetos UN resolutions condemning Israeli settlement expancion no matter how many people get killed in the process etc etc etc Russia condones Syria because its an ally. Simple as that. US would do the same as long as it suits their interest. Not would, it did and does.
Why the false dilemma? That the United States may have an interest in toppling the Asaad regime doesn't mean there aren't legitimate humanitarian concerns for the Syrian people. Putin, on the other hand, is a pure socipath, as he's demonstrated...throughout his entire life.Isn't it mightily inconvenient that Russia's interests always happen to involve condoning the world's most repressive governments? Like...its own?
Also Russian is far from being one of the most repressive governments.
Originally posted by SamZED
Dont see US showing legitimite humanitarian concerns towards the Saudi people,
Sure it does. Perhaps the argument could be made that it doesn't show enough humanitarian sentiment, but one can easily gauge from popular opinion that the United States is simply more socially conscious, in a positive manner, than Russia. Or China. And it sort of gets ridiculous when a supporter of either government comes around to ***** about America's comparatively petty deficiencies. Yes, America has supported or condoned its fair share of questionable allies and behavior, but at the moment you really can't compare it to Russia with a straight face. There's a difference between the inevitably imperfect adherence to moral principles, and simply having no moral principles whatsoever.
Also Russian is far from being one of the most repressive governments.
"one of" is quite the broad term, but it's certainly worse than any Western nation I can think of.
I went to a Walmart near Sunny Isles today...I think one of Sam's cousins was there. She was hot. peaches
(Seriously though, so many hot Russian girls in Sunny Isles Beach)
Originally posted by SamZED
oh please... No need for this righteous bs. As if US isnt in it for selfish reasons. Truth is noone gives a crap about the Syrian people, it's always about the selfish reasons. Russia will keep backing Asad as long as it suits their interest. Similarly US would look the other way if it suits theirs no matter how many people die in the process, won't be the first time. Still no definite proof of Asad using chemical weapons and I personally find it hard to believe he'd do it with UN inspectors snooping around, dumbest decision he could possibly make and he's no idiot. Of all time why wait till now to give the world an excuse to start a war agiants him? If anything it benefits the so called opposition, rushing in to help the mercenaries won't solve the problem in Syria.
And again, we're not talking about a supergenius, we're talking about a glorified warlord with a war cabinet and general staff comprised of his dad's buddies (in a sense, an Arabic George W. Bush, only more ruthless and less funny). We're also talking about someone who needed Hezbollah's help to reverse the rebel momentum, and someone who's economy would have completely collapsed were it not for Iranian money. He's a desperate, incompetent leader who would have been toppled if not for foreign help. I don't think we necessarily need to ascribe sense and wisdom to him.
As for the notion of rebels using chemical weapons, that's A LOT harder to prove than the government using them. Occam's razor tells us that it's almost certainly the government that's responsible, unless you want to delve into conspiracy theories.
In the long run, Russia is hurting itself by backing Al-Assad. It may make friends with Iran and Hezbollah, but the longer the war goes on the more enemies it will make in the Sunni world. As soon as the civil war ends, I can see most of the jihadists like Al-Nusra moving on to Chechnya.
Originally posted by Master HanIt really does not. It's borderline moronic that Saudi government backs up US in its fight against Asad's regime when it's own make Asad Sr. look like spoiled brat. And US is perfectly fine with that because its an ally, unlike Syria who they concider a threat to Israel. It has nothing to do with "poor suffering people of Syria". I agree US is more socially conscious in general, it has to be considering its the only real superpower in the world. But when it comes to pursuing ones interest at best you could argue that it's decisions are slightly less fcuked up but that's as far as you could possible take it. There's no place for humanitarian concerns when it comes to politics and in this regard US is no different than anyone else and nothing in its history suggests otherwise. It's demonstrated similar sociopathy on many MANY occasions to the point that it becomes hypocritical when US politics speak about other countries not caring for the casualties.
Sure it does. Perhaps the argument could be made that it doesn't show enough humanitarian sentiment, but one can easily gauge from popular opinion that the United States is simply more socially conscious, in a positive manner, than Russia. Or China. And it sort of gets ridiculous when a supporter of either government comes around to ***** about America's comparatively petty deficiencies. Yes, America has supported or condoned its fair share of questionable allies and behavior, but at the moment you really can't compare it to Russia with a straight face. There's a difference between the inevitably imperfect adherence to moral principles, and simply having no moral principles whatsoever."one of" is quite the broad term, but it's certainly worse than any Western nation I can think of.
It is a broad term, and Russian government pales in comparison to many. Is it comparable to western type democracy? Not really. Do people get oppressed on daily basis and lack basic freedoms? Also no. Youd have to try really really hard and personally piss off many powerful people in order to have your freedom taken away from you under some made up accusation. And that happens all over the world.