Advertisement
by Seriong » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:54 pm
Drawkland wrote:I think it delegitimizes true cases of sexual assault, like real dangerous cases being dismissed, "Oh it's only sexual assault"
Like racism. If everything's "racist," then you can't tell what really is racist.
Murkwood wrote:As a trans MtF Bi Pansexual Transautistic CAMAB Demiplatonic Asensual Better-Abled Planetkin Singlet Afro-Centric Vegan Socialist Therian, I'm immune from criticism.
by New Embossia » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:59 pm
Hornesia wrote:Homosexuality may be a sin, but Jesus died for your sins. Therefore, feel free to gay it up.
by Saint Kitten » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:00 pm
Ultrapia wrote:Having read some recent articles on the current Syria conflict and other things caused by the Arab Spring. Allot of people have been saying we are on the brink of a major war. Perhaps even a third world war. (pfft, yeh right)
To be honest I don't think it will come to that.
But when you look at it does look bad. UK and US (both N.A.T.O Nations) planning intervention against Assad Regime, Russia and China supporting the regime, Iran and Israel not getting on, almost civil war in Egypt, separate rebel groups in Syria have links to Al Qeueda and I've just read an article that Russia threatened Saudi Arabia.
Of course this happens allot. To be honest I don't think WW3 will happen and think that this is the talk of conspiracy nutcases. But what do you think?
by Sibator » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:01 pm
New Embossia wrote:Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, do not approve of war against Syria, so I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.
by The Silver Bloods » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:03 pm
Sibator wrote:New Embossia wrote:Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, do not approve of war against Syria, so I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.
I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.
by Sibator » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:09 pm
The Silver Bloods wrote:Sibator wrote:I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.
You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?
by The Silver Bloods » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:14 pm
Sibator wrote:The Silver Bloods wrote:You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?
I am pretty sure even if they were winning they would still use it to make sure the war stays that way. While I don't necessarily think the Syrian Government did it, I have a hard time seeing why the wouldn't. Yes Assad allowed UN inspectors in, but if he didn't wouldn't that have been a clear sign something was wrong? Meanwhile, he could hope they die in the war or have inconclusive evidence.
I don't necessarily think they did it, but I won't be surprised if they did.
by Sibator » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:16 pm
The Silver Bloods wrote:Sibator wrote:I am pretty sure even if they were winning they would still use it to make sure the war stays that way. While I don't necessarily think the Syrian Government did it, I have a hard time seeing why the wouldn't. Yes Assad allowed UN inspectors in, but if he didn't wouldn't that have been a clear sign something was wrong? Meanwhile, he could hope they die in the war or have inconclusive evidence.
I don't necessarily think they did it, but I won't be surprised if they did.
I wouldn't be surprised either, but I think it was a third party. By using chemical weapons you put international tension on your country with many who will oppose you and take action against you due to the Geneva Convention.
by The Silver Bloods » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:23 pm
Sibator wrote:The Silver Bloods wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised either, but I think it was a third party. By using chemical weapons you put international tension on your country with many who will oppose you and take action against you due to the Geneva Convention.
I believe it entirely depends on whether or not Assad believes the advantage of tactical chemical strikes is worth the risk of international attention.
by Sibator » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:25 pm
The Silver Bloods wrote:Sibator wrote:I believe it entirely depends on whether or not Assad believes the advantage of tactical chemical strikes is worth the risk of international attention.
There would be less controversy if he bombed them out, so why draw the attention by chemical attacks. I think the UN report may come back that it was neither party possibly.
by The Silver Bloods » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:30 pm
Sibator wrote:The Silver Bloods wrote:There would be less controversy if he bombed them out, so why draw the attention by chemical attacks. I think the UN report may come back that it was neither party possibly.
Because they are devastating to morale. In a crucial attack, the usage of chemical attacks could easily break the unit being fired upon, especially rebels who have no protection against it and are mostly formed up of undisciplined partisans and a few ex-Syrian government forces. Not to mention conventional weaponry is not as useful for infantry urban dispersion as chemical attacks, since conventional weapons would have to knock a building down to eliminate the infantry inside, but chemical weapons can seep in.
by The Unites State-Of-Minds » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:47 pm
After a brutal heat wave decimated Russia’s wheat crop during the summer of 2010, the global price of wheat (and so of that staple of life,bread) began an inexorable upward climb, reaching particularly high levels in North Africa and the Middle East. With local governments unwilling or unable to help desperate populations, anger over impossible-to-afford food merged with resentment toward autocratic regimes to trigger the massive popular outburst we know as the Arab Spring.
by Ashihara no Nakatsukuni » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:04 pm
by Grenartia » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:48 am
New Embossia wrote:Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, 1. do not approve of war against Syria, so 2. I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.
The Silver Bloods wrote:Sibator wrote:I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.
You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?
by The Bydo » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:56 pm
"Senate panel votes to support the same terrorists we have been fighting the last 15 years."
by Utopia FTW » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:32 pm
by Rio Cana » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:44 pm
by Augarundus » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:46 pm
Conscentia wrote:Yes, but they lack range & their only friends, if they even still are the DPRK's friends, are unlikely to help them.
North Korea is capable of using military force to defend it's own existence, but beyond that North Korea can do little but waste it's own resources.
Grenartia wrote:Except, if we strike first, we've got to deal with China.
Believe it or not, the NK/SK/US/China situation is more or less the same as it was during the Korean War, save for technological advances on all sides. Sure, in a conventional war, and assuming no Chinese intervention, US and SK would wipe the floor with the KPA. But assuming China won't intervene on NK's behalf is like saying that if Russia invaded Canada, the US wouldn't intervene.
Now, with China involved, things get a little more complicated. NK does have one of the largest militaries in the world, but that doesn't mean much when most are armed with little better than sticks and stones (and what decent weapons they do have probably are so sparse there's little to no options for replacement if a particular weapon gets damaged or destroyed). China, on the other hand, has not only numbers, but decent equipment, and options for replacement.
Essentially, you have a Zerg Rush. While US/ROK have the technological superiority, DPRK/PRC have sheer numbers on their side. Not to mention that if things get REALLY bad for NK, I don't think they wouldn't hesitate to try to use their nukes (potentially leading to a US/PRC nuclear exchange).
Basically, if we strike first, shit WILL hit the fan for at least one (and probably both) sides. If I, an 18 year old with little more than a high school diploma to my name, can figure this out in the space of the 10 minutes it took me to compose this response, I'm fairly sure that both the US AND China have figured it out, and in even greater detail, so there's little to no chance of a US first strike (of any nature) on NK.
tl;dr: Due to the nature of the beast, there is no chance of the US launching an unprovoked attack against North Korea.
by Mike the Progressive » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:49 pm
by Norstal » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:50 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.
I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.
...
Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Mike the Progressive » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:53 pm
Norstal wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.
I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.
...
Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.
Not a lot we can do about it? What are you, Canadian?
by Blasveck » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:55 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.
I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.
...
Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.
by Keronians » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:19 pm
Blasveck wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.
I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.
...
Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.
I don't know.
I've read some theories about how globalism has (somewhat) ended war altogether. Or at least, war with people.
by Mike the Progressive » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:21 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Avzeria, Big Eyed Animation, Duvniask, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Gravlen, Ifreann, Kannap, Kaztropol, Kerwa, Kyoto Noku, Lothria, Lycom, Shrillland, Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries, Tiami, Uiiop, Valrifall
Advertisement