attack on Syria would be a WAR CRIME: chomsky

[Toma]

With no UN support, an attack on Syria is a war crime. Professor Chomsky...

chomsky.info/onchomsky/20130902.htm

[NoMoreG35]

Who is that?

[CapnCrunch]

Agreed. The US should be limited to chemical attacks against the Syrian army.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Haha, Good ol' Chomsky.

[FraserB]

Nothing is going to happen. Obama will not get Congressional approval and he won’t be launching an unprovoked, unilateral attack that can’t be justified.

[JRSC00LUDE]

My money is on he will.

Personally though, I don't feel there is any right or obligation to stick their fucking noses into it.

I wonder what would happen if civil unrest in the U.S. grew to the point of rebellion? What would they think if China decided they should intervene and fire a few missiles in to help? Regardless of what is happening being right or wrong from this side of the worlds perspective, I don't get why it always has to be our business.

[01RedDX]

.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by FraserB
Nothing is going to happen. Obama will not get Congressional approval and he won’t be launching an unprovoked, unilateral attack that can’t be justified.

They will find (make up) a way to justify it. If it doesnt get approval wait for the more serious chemical attacks to happen, then Im sure it will. We need more war!! Gotta stimulate the economy somehow, and what better way than killing babies and other innocent people?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
haha Toma is antagonizing Americans over on yellowbullet forums with the same exact thread.

Here is a snippet of him conversing with an American soldier:



LOL oh Toma...

Link? Looks like some funny shit.

[drtoohotty1]

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...php?p=12284112

[ekguy]

toma is awesome overthere my god haha.

[ekguy]

an attack on syria from the states would be an incredibly bad thing for the world. seriously it's just time they start minding their own problems at home.

fix detroit before you fix syria.

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by ekguy
an attack on syria from the states would be an incredibly bad thing for the world. seriously it's just time they start minding their own problems at home.

fix detroit before you fix syria.

Riiiight, because the US should hit Detroit with cruise missiles. Or do you mean that the economic and fiscal policy makers are busy planning strikes on Syria when they should be focusing on Detroit?

[ekguy]

just a loose jab at how so much of the US is in terrible debt, lot's of the population below the poverty line, and they feel it's responsible to go an start another god damn war....

isn't everyone just getting fed up of the fact that they are literally constantly at war somewhere...???

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by ekguy
just a loose jab at how so much of the US is in terrible debt, lot's of the population below the poverty line, and they feel it's responsible to go an start another god damn war....

isn't everyone just getting fed up of the fact that they are literally constantly at war somewhere...???

One way to look at that is by saying "isn't everyone just getting fed up of the fact that the police are constantly arresting people somewhere?"

I think every conflict should be looked at independently; if there are 5 Hitlers in a row, it would be a pretty weak excuse to say "well we have fought against 4, and people are getting fed up, so we'll let the fifth one slide".

Some people praise the US for taking up arms against injustices when they don't have any real obligation to do so, and are doing it out of a perceived good (highly debatable, of course).

In this case, it seems that the Syrian government broke a well-recognized international rule about using chemical weapons. What's more, it was against civilians. The US could do a lot of good by smacking Syria and making an example of them for other countries who might consider using chemical warfare in the future.

The major point of debate, I believe, is "who used the chemical weapons?" Not much you can do about it if the rebels did, but the French, British and American intelligence agencies seem pretty convinced that it was the government. And yes, before WMD's get brought up, they don't have a perfect track record, but that doesn't mean they are all automatically wrong.

[themack89]

Originally posted by ekguy
fix detroit before you fix syria.

SIGGED

[AG_Styles]

Obummer is going to strike Syria

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-...142149156.html

"President Barack Obama won the backing of key figures in the U.S. Congress, including Republicans, in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Speaking after the United Nations said two million Syrians had fled a conflict that posed the greatest threat to world peace since the Vietnam war, Obama said the United States also has a broader plan to help rebels defeat Assad's forces.

In remarks that appeared to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. backing, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defence or with Security Council authorization."


cue Obummer apologist responses.

[themack89]

Originally posted by HyperZell
The major point of debate, I believe, is "who used the chemical weapons?&quot

That's not a major point of 'debate'... Its what they have to say to sell it to the world. They know who used the weapons, at least by now they do. I think its more a matter of how to deliver it to make an invasion seem legit.

I'm surprised how people don't notice the word "convinced" as such a silly word to be used by the top intelligence gatherer on the planet. Really? With as many resources as they have, "convinced" is the best they can come up with?

....Or maybe I'm just too strong a believer in my fantasy idea that the world is corrupt as balls and the intelligence capabilities of the world's richest nations are not actually as good as I think they are.

[HyperZell]

Originally posted by themack89


That's not a major point of 'debate'... Its what they have to say to sell it to the world. They know who used the weapons, at least by now they do. I think its more a matter of how to deliver it to make an invasion seem legit.

But one leads to another. If the answer is "the rebels used chemical weapons", then the US has nothing to justify or "sell" an attack. However, if the answer is "the government", then the US has a platform to sell their attack on.

Most of the detractors I've seen that have a decent argument use the lack of concrete proof that the government did it as the main reason why the US should chill.

[themack89]

Originally posted by HyperZell


But one leads to another. If the answer is "the rebels used chemical weapons", then the US has nothing to justify or "sell" an attack. However, if the answer is "the government", then the US has a platform to sell their attack on.

Most of the detractors I've seen that have a decent argument use the lack of concrete proof that the government did it as the main reason why the US should chill.

Yeah exactly... What I'm saying is a legit reason to have military presence in Syria is too good of a situation for the US to pass up. If it isn't actually legit, they will make it legit. Some how.

Connect the dots... What are the two things the US loves the most?

1) Crude Oil
2) National Security

Take a look at a map around Syria and it will make perfect sense.