By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - US launches missiles at Syrian Base following chemical attack

KLAMarine on 07 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
KLAMarine said:

Where are you getting this information from?

US Foreign aid:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/us-foreign-aid-report/

Interesting figures but this was for 2014, not 2011-2012 when the Arab Spring occurred. You mentioned that "when the Arab Spring happened [the US] just told Mubarak to step down and then let the military take over, avoiding revolution".

So where is the objection? History has shown us that revolutions can get violent thus if revolution was avoided according to you, what's there to be upset about?



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 07 April 2017
KLAMarine said:
VGPolyglot said:

US Foreign aid:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/us-foreign-aid-report/

Interesting figures but this was for 2014, not 2011-2012 when the Arab Spring occurred. You mentioned that "when the Arab Spring happened [the US] just told Mubarak to step down and then let the military take over, avoiding revolution".

So where is the objection? History has shown us that revolutions can get violent thus if revolution was avoided according to you, what's there to be upset about?

It shows that the United States supported the coup, by giving them such massive amounts of money after their takeover.

So, your second paragraph is basically, revolutions = violent, therefore revolutions = bad? Is that seriously your logic? That's ignoring the torture initiated by Mubarak, especially post 9/11, and the Egyptian government's highly repressive policies. 



Ljink96 on 07 April 2017

So um...road to WWIII? WWIII hype train

He took the bait...just like Bush...and I hope the event that followed Bush's actions doesn't happen to a larger scale. Maybe I don't know too much about the results this will have with Russian and US involvement but it can't be good right? Somebody fill me in?



Sharu on 07 April 2017

https://t.co/YAKPOxYn8y
So USA is an ISIS ally?



Boost6 on 07 April 2017
Ljink96 said:
So um...road to WWIII? WWIII hype train

He took the bait...just like Bush...and I hope the event that followed Bush's actions doesn't happen to a larger scale. Maybe I don't know too much about the results this will have with Russian and US involvement but it can't be good right? Somebody fill me in?

Us warned the Russian of the strikes, they would not dare stike them.   They actualy have the means to fire back and to toe to toe.  

 



Around the Network
KLAMarine on 07 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
KLAMarine said:

Interesting figures but this was for 2014, not 2011-2012 when the Arab Spring occurred. You mentioned that "when the Arab Spring happened [the US] just told Mubarak to step down and then let the military take over, avoiding revolution".

So where is the objection? History has shown us that revolutions can get violent thus if revolution was avoided according to you, what's there to be upset about?

It shows that the United States supported the coup, by giving them such massive amounts of money after their takeover.

So, your second paragraph is basically, revolutions = violent, therefore revolutions = bad? Is that seriously your logic? That's ignoring the torture initiated by Mubarak, especially post 9/11, and the Egyptian government's highly repressive policies. 

No, my logic is revolution CAN be violent but it isn't always violent and the image posted by Valdath is silly as it seems to grant a great deal of culpability on the US for revolutionary movements that can be traced back to more homegrown movements inspired during the Arab Spring.

I admit I am no expert on Middle East politics but thus far, this is the impression I'm getting.



VGPolyglot on 07 April 2017
KLAMarine said:
VGPolyglot said:

It shows that the United States supported the coup, by giving them such massive amounts of money after their takeover.

So, your second paragraph is basically, revolutions = violent, therefore revolutions = bad? Is that seriously your logic? That's ignoring the torture initiated by Mubarak, especially post 9/11, and the Egyptian government's highly repressive policies. 

No, my logic is revolution CAN be violent but it isn't always violent and the image posted by Valdath is silly as it seems to grant a great deal of culpability on the US for revolutionary movements that can be traced back to more homegrown movements inspired during the Arab Spring.

I admit I am no expert on Middle East politics but thus far, this is the impression I'm getting.

Actually, revolution almost has to be violent, because those in power are not going to willingly give it up. There are acceptions, like in Eastern Europe, but that happened because the politicians greatly benefited from the privatisation of industries, so they gained a lot of money in doing so.



fory77 on 07 April 2017

oh no assad is a ebil dictator who totaly gasses his own people just 4 fun
lets bomb him cuz y not Xdddd



Boost6 on 07 April 2017
Areym said:
LadyJasmine said:

Well I dont agree with getting involved but unlike Obama he is atleast doing something in Syria then making made up redlines. 

If you don't agree with getting involved, then shouldn't you be condeming this? Specially since it seems like he straight up bypassed congress, which he warned obama not to do back in 2013 when Assad also used chemical weapons.

Also, Isn't taking no action also an action?

Rebels not assad,  per the UN.

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



Vinther1991 on 07 April 2017

That was about time!
But he should have just bombed the shit out of them and denied the US had anything to do with it, that's how Russia and Assad always do it