QUOTE: This place is just too damn quiet these days.
Read post number 3 and you'll get an idea. I've been around this forum since the WinMag days and it has over time degenerated from interesting discussions to a few who are incapable of civility and quickly resort to insults and name calling. Think about how many people used to frequent and post in the off topic compared to what it is now.
This is the last post I will ever make in PCQ&A. The trolls have run off yet another long time member.
Les don't run off so fast. Stay away from OT until you calm down. We still have the computer forum.
Ethan
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene
Les don't run off so fast. Stay away from OT until you calm down. We still have the computer forum.
I agree, as another WinMag veteran, your presence here has always been welcome. Stick around. This forum has weathered many changes, and is still a valuable asset.
#6. "RE: Syria" In response to ablib (Reply # 0) Wed Sep-04-13 01:32 AM by Horatio
Quote:
QUOTE: This place is just too damn quiet these days.
Syria. Should the United States intervene?
What say you?
I think the more important question is why do they want to.. it is quite complicated, but if one wants to learn the real story, it's not difficult to find out what it is really all about.
What it is clearly not about, is Chemical weapons.
anyone who wants a start can look at this little video and go from there to research the things mentioned for themselves
Engdahl doesn't have a lot of credibility, at least in my view.
Quote:
Confessions of an 'ex' peak oil believer
Engdahl stated in 2007 that he had come to believe that petroleum is not biological in origin, produced from remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions, which is a theory supported by the majority of petroleum geologists and engineers. Instead he now believes the hypothesis that petroleum is geological in origin, produced deep underground from carbon, by conditions and forces of heat and pressure deeper down than the Earth's biosphere. Engdahl calls himself an "ex peak oil believer", stating that peak oil is actually a political phenomenon.
Global warming criticism
Engdahl argued that the problem with global warming is much exaggerated. He claims that global warming, like peak oil, is merely a "scare" and a "thinly veiled attempt to misuse climate to argue for a new Malthusian reduction of living standards for the majority of the world while a tiny elite gains more power."
Engdahl doesn't have a lot of credibility, at least in my view.
Well it would seem that in the rest of the world he is highly respected for his insight into Geo Politics.
What part of his theories re the Middle East and the reasons for the US wanting to go to war with Syria do you dispute?
Can you point to more credible experts who disagree with Engdahl, or have a more believable theory for us?
Or, is it his views on Peak Oil or Global Warming that so disturbs or offends you?
Personally, I could care less what he thinks about Peak Oil. I imagine if he came around to what he now believes from being a proponent of the theory, he had good reasons to change his views. Knowing that the latest estimates say the the Tar Sands in Alberta alone contain over 170 billion barrels of oil, I don't lose much sleep over the Peak Oil debate.
Neither that nor the abstruse arguments about Global warming really concern me and have nothing do do with what we are discussing here.
Our friend Ablib has asked us if the US should intervene. Intervene is a nice euphemism for dropping bombs on and killing a lot of people in Syria.
I'm just interested in why they want to do it. I don't really know what the plan is, but is it very clear that is is not about chemical weapons..anyone who looks can see that.
As of today, there is no credible evidence yet as to what chemicals were used in these attacks, or who deployed them. None. If anyone can point to any, put up your hand.
And many question come up. Why would Assad, who according to most accounts is winning his war and has the paid mercenaries who are fighting him on the defensive - why would he deploy chemical weapons knowing that it would be a perfect excuse for the US to justify an attack. He may be many things, but he's not stupid.
And why does the US think they can invade another country that hasn't attacked them, nor their interests, or allies. Something like that could only be done legally with the consent of the UNSC. Polls I've seen put the majority of US citizens agains the idea.
as Shelly mentioned, Assad is a monster. I don't agree that he is a worse monster than his father. But the world is full of them..the whole of the Middle East is under the control of monsters of one degree or another.
Does anyone really think that the US administration wants to drag their country in to a war over a few hundred Arabs getting gassed by whatever group did it or didn't do it?
Why are they so desparate to get in there and start bombing now? That's what we should be asking. That's much more interesting and probably not really hard to figure out for anyone who looks.
Some good points there. Tangible proof that Assad is the perp (Russia says that if such proof is forthcoming they are willing to reconsider), UNSC approval (since neither the US or one of its allies was attacked, US unilateral action without that approval is contrary to international law). And then a plan of action besides simply bombing the shit out of another place, which looks impressive on CNN but usually ends up doing more harm than good while killing the wrong people.
US unilateral action without that approval is contrary to international law).
Exactly what international law was that? US Presidents of both parties have taken military action without Congressional approval at least back to FDR. There is nothing to prevent our commander in chief to innate emergency military action without anyones permission.
It was probably only something I dreamed I heard amid all the chatter. Wishful thinking, I guess. I shouldn't have repeated it. There probably is no such law. But, on second thought, it isn't such a bad idea -- maybe we need one like it.
#26. "RE: Syria" In response to jazz4free (Reply # 25) Fri Sep-06-13 12:30 AM by Horatio
Quote:
It was probably only something I dreamed I heard amid all the chatter. Wishful thinking, I guess. I shouldn't have repeated it. There probably is no such law. But, on second thought, it isn't such a bad idea -- maybe we need one like it.
No James, you were right as far as International Law is concerned. It is very simple when it comes to states attacking other states.
The fundamental rule of contemporary international law is that states cannot attack other states. The U.N. Charter embodies this rule, and makes only two exceptions to it: a state can attack another state if it is authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution, or if the attacking state is acting in genuine self-defense.
By every angle you look at it, completely illegal to go in without UN approval.
But when it comes to U.S. law it gets very fuzzy and difficult to understand. Essentially the president is free under the law to wage war on anyone he likes without approval of Congress for ninety days. So the law allows him to wage war on Syia, but the law itself is unconstitutional. For a better explanation of how this happens here is former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano.(who will be familiar to Fox News addicts) It's a brief but well put explanation (albeit partly politically motivated) of a very complicated subject. watch the whole video.
Toward the end of the interview they both play dumb as to why the president wants to attack Sryia, but overall very informative.
QUOTE: This may come as a surprise, but the UN does not govern the world. It is composed of independant nations that are free to dissagre.
free to disagree certainly.
free to attack another sovereign country that:
is no threat to them is not under attack and has not asked for help. can in no way threaten, or harm the US or it's allies is not attacking another country, nor planning to attack another country
this is not the Wild West. No matter how you slice it, going into Syria with Military force is 100 percent illegal under International law.
Most of the civilized world including most Americans see that thankfully.. People remember other false flag terrorist scares and trumped up evidence of this or that outrage..It's getting harder to fool people.
is no threat to them is not under attack and has not asked for help. can in no way threaten, or harm the US or it's allies is not attacking another country, nor planning to attack another country
this is not the Wild West. No matter how you slice it, going into Syria with Military force is 100 percent illegal under International law.
Most of the civilized world including most Americans see that thankfully.. People remember other false flag terrorist scares and trumped up evidence of this or that outrage..It's getting harder to fool people.
Absolutely.
The US was one of the five original permanent members and was instrumental in establishing the now UN.
In that capacity the US agreed and signed up to the UN Charter which includes in Article 2 the following:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It looks like the US WILL intervene. Congressional leaders from both sides of the isle seem to be in agreement that Assad's regime has gone too far with the gassing of hundreds, many of whom were children. Such actions cannot be ignored,... the holocaust comes to mind.
The Arab countries of the region are wealthy and armed to the teeth with the most advanced American weaponry. they are aware of what is happening in Syria and how much it endangers them. Let them take care of the problem.
Ethan
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene
I have no horse in this race. Assad is a worse tyrant than his father was and is probably insane. But who replaces him? the al Qaeda elements that have co opted the legitimate Syrian opposition?
Every bone in my body wants to see Assad pay for what he has done, I would like to see a US rocket blow him to hell... but what are the unforeseeable consequences? If nobody does anything, will that encourage Iran to send a nuclear rocket to Israel? Once that genie is let out of the bag is anyone safe from a holocaust?
at first I thought you must be joking, but on second thought I'll take a gamble that you are serious.
Brilliant!! absolutely brilliant..
now would you like to tell us who 'those in charge' are.
surgical strike?. what is a surgical strike and how does it work? Do the surgical bombs work different from normal bombs?
and considering the UN inspectors who just carried out thier instpections in Damascus won't know for several weeks what, if any chemicals were used in Syria, or by whom, should Obama wait to be sure, or let his military start operating on the patient right away?
and considering the UN inspectors who just carried out thier instpections in Damascus won't know for several weeks what, if any chemicals were used in Syria, or by whom,
The UN inspectors are just checking to see if chemical weapons were used, not for who used them. We determine that.
Quote:
surgical strike?. what is a surgical strike and how does it work? Do the surgical bombs work different from normal bombs?
Check your usual source, Al Jazeera!
Ed W.
"IN GOD WE still TRUST - ALL OTHERS, WE used to MONITOR"
#36. "RE: Syria" In response to Horatio (Reply # 29) Sat Sep-07-13 07:56 PM by Mize
Quote:
QUOTE:surgical strike?. what is a surgical strike and how does it work? Do the surgical bombs work different from normal bombs?
Do your research...it's quite obvious you have no idea what our military is capable of...especially our Navy SEALS
As far as that goes any of our Special Forces teams are very capable of surgical strikes, I just favor the SEALS because I'm a Navy vet and know what they are able to do.
Do your research...it's quite obvious you have no idea what our military is capable of...especially our Navy SEALS
Oh I think I do. I know how they demolished Iraq and Libya, and are on their way to doing the same thing in Egypt, I know your Nobel winning president is salivating at the thoughts of destroying Syria with your military. Is that the capabilities you are talking about?
And not surprising really, when you consider that there are only six countries in this world that have military bases in foreign countries:
Russia, with 12 United Kingdom with 6 France with 6 Turkey with 1 India with 1 USA with (depending on who you ask) 700 to 1100.
I imagine there are going be lots more demonstrations of your military capabilities.
So once again an American hating Canadian wants nothing done while a rogue government wages unthinkable horror on it's own people.
Now I know you know nothing. Hell you didn't even know what a surgical strike is.....
From Collins English Dictionary surgical strike noun (military) a military action designed to destroy a particular target without harming other people or damaging other buildings near it
Damn that one was tough wasn't it?
Have you even researched what is going on?
Have you any idea how horrible a death it is to be gassed with Sarin?
As a Navy Corpsman I had to know about this and the many horrible chemical and biological weapons the world has developed.
I don't want to see war anywhere and more than anything I would like to see all our military people home protecting our borders, but someone needs to do something about a government that is willing to kill it's own people with these sort of weapons.
I guarantee people in this country would not put up with it and would take a stand in a heartbeat.
Murdoch (who owns 75% of the Australian print press) used that to manipulate the result of the recent election in order to protect his Foxtel cable TV monopoly from the previous government's high speed internet scheme.
At least the USA is big enough that there is room for opposition to him. We have one man who controls cable TV and the print press.
You read correctly, but I bet it wasn't in the Murdoch press.
Paul D
Oh no. I didn't really do my research very well. I got that from reading e-mails from a couple of Australian friends. They are very sound people as you obviously are so I kind of assumed that theirs and your assessments of Abbot were probably accurate..
having a hard time finding anybody who is happy about that election.
this is like trying to extol the benefits of correct posture to a hunchback.
I will admit to feeling your pain while you patiently tried to get the blind to see but, alas, all was for naught... Oh well, you tried.
Dave
haha, I even brought on FOX news to make them maybe see that it's not just people of my ilk who think this idea is madness...and even that only prompted someone to remark that FOX news wasn't the best source for imformative news...it really is a waste of time.
So once again an American hating Canadian wants nothing done...
There are so many things wrong with that, but I'll just speak to the "wants nothing done" part.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that was either said or even implied. I think that more than anything, we outsiders are grown kinda tired of some of you guys with your supercilious moralizing and your country's selective situational outrage.
Believe it or not, even some of us bed wetting foreigners have a functioning moral compass.
Could it be that we don't think that sending in the marines is the answer to every bad thing that happens in the world. After all, it doesn't seem to work all that well.
I do not recall anyone advocating sending in the Marines or any other US military.
As I posted above, I have no horse in this race. I could build a good case supporting either military action or non-action, but whatever happens I will as always support my country.
Well, I was using the marines metaphorically, but that's neither here nor there.
I, too, usually wind up supporting my country when it takes a position concerning international affairs, but the jackass politicians who make the literal life and death decisions sometimes make that damned hard to do.
