Picard on Syrian War. What... is there just more STUPID to go around these days? Found on my feed and cleaned up a bit.. PET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... WE' RE milt picard syria War
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (290)
[ 290 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #156 - traveltech
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [+] (50 replies)
stickied
It's because chemical weapons were used, which are terrible. There's an international ban on their use and if it doesn't get enforced then other regimes won't be afraid to use them. Obama is jumping the gun, however. We do know for a fact that chemical weapons were used, but we don't know who used them yet.
#244 to #156 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Yeah so what if some other country is using chemical weapons? If it doesn't concern us, we don't need to bust the door in and act like we own the place. Unless we're planning on enslaving the Syrians.
User avatar #245 to #244 - sketchE
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
im going to give you a visual for a second. imagine the worlds worst cramp. in every single muscle on your body. your body continues to stiffen and your muscles continue to contract until your back breaks and you die. thats a chemical weapon
#246 to #245 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Ok first of all chemical weapon is a very broad term. There are many many different things that can be classified as a chemical weapon, and they do not all work the same way. So to say that what you just described is what chemical weapons are; that's more than a stretch. Maybe one certain chemical weapon works that way, but more than likely you just came up with something that sounded really unpleasant in an attempt to look smarter than me.

Also, that statement is unrelated to the point I was making anyways. I was saying that we as a country should not try to butt into everyone else's affairs, because we do not rule the world.

Plus, given my last sentence I thought it was clear that I was trying to make a joke and be light-hearted about it, but then you had to go full retard.
User avatar #247 to #246 - sketchE
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
yes that was an example of one. it wasnt a very obvious joke since you had a serious statement prior. by your standard every country in the world should turn a blind eye to everything. germany should have been allowed to conquer the western world japan should have been allowed to literally rape every chinese person out there. the rest of the world does not get an opinion on nukes. the rest of the world doesnt get an opinion on anything any country does no matter how horrible it is
#248 to #247 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
> Not act like you're in charge of everything
> Turn a blind eye
Not always the same
User avatar #249 to #248 - sketchE
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
and how is attacking someone who puts there people through that kind of suffering acting like we own everything?
#251 to #249 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
For the same reason that you can't beat someone up just because you don't like the way their family does things.
#266 to #251 - calibratuner
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Well if in that family the husband is beating the **** out of the wife, and bashing his children with baseball bats, then yes you ought to go beat the **** outta him.

Anyone who can sit idly by while that is occurring cannot call themselves good people.
#268 to #266 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Ok well I was gonna be done commenting on this, but I changed my mind. Seeing somebody do something bad does not give you the right to do something bad too. If there is illegal/abusive behavior going on, you report it to the police, you don't try to take it into your own hands if it's none of your business. Beating someone up doesn't make you a good person either.
#272 to #268 - calibratuner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Okay, lets put this into a better perspective then.

Using the same scenario, if the father figure killed his children and was going to kill his wife, and you could stop it, would you? Or wait for the police to come, by which time he could have attacked again killing his wife.

Who exactly governs another state? Sanctions? Embargoes? Sending not so nice letters to the Syrian government telling them off for using the Chemical Weapons?

At least a thousand people were killed in a horrific way, and we should let someone else deal with it? In this instance, we need to force them to ******* quit it, we need to cripple them in other ways. When it comes to war, there is no such thing as right only wrong. Which wrong is better. Is it better to let the Syrian Regime continue using Chemical Weapons, or better to weaken them via airstrikes at key targets?
User avatar #252 to #251 - sketchE
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
so to put this into perspective. your comparing killing thousands of people in excrutiatingly painful ways to a parent that yells at their kids?
#254 to #252 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Yes. It's called an analogy, you should look it up sometime. Also, I never said anything specific about parents yelling at their kids. How to form an argument 101: don't put words into the other person's mouth. It just makes you look like a jackass.

Also, *you're.
User avatar #255 to #254 - sketchE
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
how to forma an argument 212. give specific examples to use in an analogy to alleviate any misunderstanding
bad example: using a chemical weapon is like how a family does things
good example using a chemical weapon is like a parent strapping their child to a board and dripping hydrochloric acid on their chest because they threw a tantrum

also insulting the other party is known as ad hominem. a logical fallacy used to distract from the argument by making the other side seem inferior
#256 to #255 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Well, that's enough internet for today. Have fun being you, I'm sure you're great at parties
User avatar #257 to #256 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
i dont do parties. im uncomfortable socializing with people i dont know
User avatar #234 to #156 - whiplasher
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Well, there's hardly any proof that chemical weapons were used.
User avatar #216 to #156 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
"I will stop violence by creating more violence"
Lol merica.
#220 to #216 - alegitusername
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
worked on japan... even though they were never the same afterwards
User avatar #222 to #220 - trollwoopnazi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
what is happening in this image
#224 to #222 - alegitusername
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
simply put... Japan.
User avatar #232 to #220 - mrpavelowgrimm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
this is my fetish I must know the source.
#223 to #216 - anon id: 56d46ea3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Geneva Convention*
#218 to #216 - anon id: d5d1a480
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
as a Merican I approve of this quote
User avatar #231 to #156 - jokervsbatsy
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Still, this does not justify the Usa invasion there
#233 to #231 - tehfunnyguy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Lol, we aren't invading. There won't be any boots on the ground unless (I don't remember what he said, something about immediate threats to our nation security?) Anyways, we are just using preemptive long range strikes in order to stop the regime. While I don't believe we should devote ourselves to this, it does have legitimacy... barely.
#219 to #156 - mca
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
A country being so critical on the use of chemical weapons when actively supporting drone usage inwarfare is a bit "meh"
User avatar #269 to #219 - traveltech
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Alright, but mustard gas is a way more inhumane way to go than targeted drone strike
#236 to #156 - anon id: 36be03b7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
not just any chemical weapons btw , whoever used them used nerve gas which is a WMD . causing extreme suffering .
User avatar #240 to #156 - symustafa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
But the lack of evidence is just.....suspicious.
User avatar #258 to #156 - bashead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
******* hypocrites.... Agent Orange in Vietnam that affected hundreds of thousands is ok, but in Syria it's too evil
User avatar #259 to #258 - thewowpimp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
do you know what agent orange is?
User avatar #260 to #259 - bashead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
chemical weapon? the thing that it wasnt meant for killing people and ended up this way isnt an excuse
User avatar #261 to #260 - thewowpimp
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Agent orange is just a defoliant.

It killed the trees the Vietnamese were using as cover.
User avatar #265 to #261 - gibssowas
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
That is not quite correct.
It also affected unborn childs in vietnam because a chemical called TCDD was used that caused deformation during pregnancy.

User avatar #264 to #261 - SognaVetr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
And it's chemical composition also brought a myriad of disseases to the people living under the folliage...
#294 to #261 - anon id: 8afbb779
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/03/2013) [-]
That still goes under chemical warfare, which is what the ban actually is about.
User avatar #263 to #156 - danster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
My sources tell me the USA has been providing weapons to the rebels.
User avatar #267 to #263 - shaddz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
ever seen Lord of War. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Their government is dangerous and willing to do anything so they supply the rebels so that they don't have to invade, help them solve a problem without direct involvement.
User avatar #279 to #267 - danster
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #280 to #279 - danster
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
How is their government dangerous? The US has been arming rebels so that they can commit war crimes and such, blame it on the Syrian government, and get Iran involved.
User avatar #284 to #280 - shaddz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I was gonna call you a tin foil hat brigade footsoldier but I have to admit, you are right. this crap has been bothering me for too long and needs to be fixed
User avatar #285 to #284 - danster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I don't this video has been posted before, the key reason why I hesitated to do so.

On a side note, how many of his videos did you watch?
User avatar #286 to #285 - shaddz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
5 or 6 just now after I gave that 1 a shot (I do not bash something till I hear its side)
#283 to #280 - shaddz
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #271 to #156 - traveltech
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
OH GOD I MADE A POST ON POLITICAL CONTENT




I have made a horrible mistake.
User avatar #273 to #271 - traveltech
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
AND I JUST REALIZED IT GOT STICKIED
User avatar #277 to #273 - turnonthenews [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
You're welcome.
I thought this was pretty succinct and not too inflamed like a lot of the comments here.
User avatar #243 to #156 - thatguyontheright
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Then it is the UN's problem. No one nation should be enforcing International Law.
User avatar #235 to #156 - KyriSvk
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #270 to #235 - traveltech
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Didn't know about that, but considering the date that's not even the same incident. Why didn't I hear about that back in May?
User avatar #11 - KayRed
Reply +156 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Only stupid people simplify situations like this to make themselves look clever.
#20 to #11 - anon id: 48a102f4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Or, maybe it was a joke on a site specifically made for jokes.
User avatar #152 to #20 - thepyras
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
This is what pisses me off about this site. You're allowed to be as ignorant as you want because when anyone calls you out on it, "it's a joke."
User avatar #151 to #20 - KayRed
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
And it pisses me off even more now that I realize the dude's name is turnonthenews, because he clearly doesn't.
User avatar #150 to #20 - KayRed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I don't deny that it was a joke, but to be able to joke about something like this, you should at least understand the situation, as opposed to simplifying it to make get gratification for the comment. That is actually my number one turn off for a comedian, when they make a joke about something that I understand, and the joke makes it clear that they don't really understand it, I stop thinking their funny. Ron White is famous for this kind of ****.
User avatar #198 to #150 - chezburgadominator
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Not saying I disagree with you, but he did say he didn't create the content, only found it on his Facebook feed.
User avatar #276 to #198 - KayRed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Then that makes it even worse, because the mother ****** isn't even smart enough to think for himself.
User avatar #142 to #20 - failtolawl
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
it's obvious that this "joke" is trying to send a message. don't be pretentious, cunt.
User avatar #174 to #142 - lumpymandude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I agree with you, if it were the other side of the argument, it wouldn't be a "joke" to him.
#75 to #20 - anon id: 325a3f58
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Are you implying that fact/learning content are jokes?

inb4 >implying.jpg
User avatar #172 to #20 - lumpymandude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I don't think he was trying to be super funny
User avatar #189 to #11 - completeaddiction **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
the solution isn't complicated but people make it complicated because they are stupid
#9 - chudboy
-16 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #71 to #9 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
> Syrias GDP is 64 billion
> Americas national debt near 17 trillion

Are you retarded, m8.
#74 to #71 - chudboy
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#72 to #71 - chudboy
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #76 to #72 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Your ideas/theories are pretty ****. Just saying. Like, no evidence "I think this happened/could happen" baloney. Get real.

Oil exports don't mean ****, at all. Notion is ridiculous, and not based on anything.

> hurrr durrrr America invaded iraq for oil
> price of gas doubles and stays like that
> we train their army, build schools, hospitals
b-but....we got their oil...thats what the war was about....
#84 to #76 - chudboy
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#17 to #9 - jakelguy
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
most chemical weapons act much like torture as you die. the missile strikes are only aimed at military targets. Chemical weapons are outlawed under the geneva conventions. Granted, I do not think America should act alone on this. I think we should have a multilateral effort with the blessing of the UN. pic not relevant.
#51 to #17 - killyojoy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
>Implying that the rebels didn't admit to using them.
#19 to #17 - chudboy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
As much as I understand the use of Chemical Weapons, and that missile strikes are directed at military targets, it does cause a lot of chaos, and as I said, **** **** up. I mean, yes we should do something. But the intention of protecting people, sadly, ins't their biggest priority imo. For me, it seems like an excuse to occupy. We'll have to see how it plays out. I'd rather not have another 10 year war.
#167 to #17 - swiggityswooty
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
why does everyone beat me to post this
User avatar #126 to #17 - volleys
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Implying death is pleasant.
User avatar #30 to #17 - Javapenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
The UN is the one who should have said something in the first place. They were the ones who banned chemical weapons to begin with, yet they don't have the balls to say no when someone is doing something wrong.
User avatar #52 to #30 - nass
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
But you people keep forgetting: Russia and China are in the UN too. They have their veto and that's it. This is the reason why there isn't a mandate ..
User avatar #18 to #17 - mynameisgeorge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
France and the Arab League support it
#262 to #17 - anon id: 262acf37
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Yes because the last time America acted is the lead of a "multilateral effort with the blessing of the UN" the country it invaded became a democracy and everyone is happy in it now.

OH WAIT! That's not what happened in Iraq. It's a ******** now that went not from BAD to GOOD, but from BAD to WORSE.

America should just sit this one out. Not go out alone or part of a group. Let the Syrians and the Arabs handle their own self.

It would screw things over for everyone, even from America's perspective. You will lose a **** ton of money on yet another unnecessary war.
#133 - chubbisavior
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I'm certainly not
#134 to #133 - yentabear
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Bloody right!
User avatar #79 - warburg
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Don't be purposefully thickheaded, there's this thing called chemical weapons, the Geneva Convention and human rights. Now I know the US and the west aren't exactly consistent when it comes to these things, but we can do what's right in Syria or what's easy. I'll let you figure out which is which.
#81 to #79 - anon id: 48a102f4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Genocide is as well, that didn't stop us from ignoring it in Africa, this is about the US not wanting Syria to potentially attack Israel, we don't give a **** if some Syrian civilians die.
User avatar #83 to #81 - warburg
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I don't live in the US and can't really speak for the US government but I fervently wished the West and Nato had entered Rwanda despite the fact that the population might have hated us for it. There's also the thing to consider that just because you didn't do the right thing in the past doesn't mean you shouldn't do it now.
#146 to #79 - anon id: 08c0c63e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
that what the un is for ..........................................
User avatar #80 to #79 - MudkipTomislav
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Yes but the threats are purely political as they have clearly noted they want to attack Assad and the government military while there is still no proof whether they were the ones to use chemical weapons, the rebels or even both,
User avatar #82 to #80 - warburg
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
They say they have conclusive evidence and after the Iraq debacle, I doubt they are going to be that careless. Now if they can't prove the attack was made by Assad, the attack should be reconsidered, but I seriously doubt that the rebels could get their hands on large-scale chemical weapons. Waiting for the UN to finish their investigation wouldn't be a bad thing either of course.
#111 - cmndrfatty
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Is this true that Russia is threatening us if we invade Syria? I just wanna clear up some rumors :I
#116 to #111 - widar
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Well, no. They just say it would be a tragic mistake and will end in a disaster for everybody involved. Which is kinda true, considering that in case of a rebel victory, the country will likely be taken over by jihadists.
User avatar #121 to #111 - shaddz
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
No, OK basically 2 birds with 1 answer here. First for OP. The idea is to show that there are consequences for using chemical weapons which is like big spray for humans, highly effective but one of the worst and most painful ways to go outside of torture that has been outlawed. They want to make sure that they make an example out of them to deter it happening elsewhere.

and for you my good man Russia has made a bit of a blockade with a submarine and a warship armed with anti air missiles to protect syria from an invasion as the UN has not ruled on anything yet so America is completely out of grounds in its attack, looking back at the first answer they are justified but there is a treaty for a reason and Russia is constantly kept in check for it so it is only fair that the others abide by the rules too. Basically it is a bit of a ********* of global politics and posturing.
User avatar #122 to #121 - shaddz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
bug not big
User avatar #115 to #111 - vindictivenature
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
No, but it'd upset them greatly.
User avatar #124 - salihzzz
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
I honestly don't believe Asad used chemical weapens, he just started to get the upper hand, the war wouldn't have lasted more than a year.

And i feel like the us is being a little bitch. first they sponsor the freedom fighters and when **** goes downhill they want to invade, no illuminati **** but if you can't see there's a hidden agenda, you're an idiot.
And to every one talking about the geneva convention and international laws, the US and Israel have broken a few of those laws aswell...

now we sit back and watch the red thumbs pile up
#147 to #124 - anon id: 46717350
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Yes, it's the game played over and over again. The end result is to invade, bomb the **** out of the capital. Replace their currency with a debt based one like the US. Then flood the country full of photocopied debt-based currency, then reap all the countries wealth from the interest 'they' owe on the debt repayments all year, every year. It's otherwise known as 'Debt Rape'. You can steal about 10% of a nation's wealth every year on the money they now 'have' to borrow. Ie, they require 100 billion in repairs, you will be able to recieve 'that' loan back and an extra '10 billion' on top of it. Which is usually taking away their livelihood, 10 billion, usually a power plant, one year, a water supply and treatment plant the next year and so on. Eventualy you end up with a country who owns nothing, all the banks own it. And then they slowly exterminate the people who get poorer and poorer. Then the banks owners move in, usually the Israel jews. RT . com .
User avatar #202 to #124 - RisenLichen
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
But he doesn't want to invade, he wants to organize strikes. As in missiles and drones. He's not talking about boots on the ground.
User avatar #137 to #124 - jabzilla
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I think the UN chemical inspection people that were in syria at the time of the attack said that the rebels used the chemicals on those poor civilians...but this is just word of mouth mind you. I do agree with the rest of your comment but sadly im banned from thumbing so have a great comment instead. also you should feel happy about your deducing skills my friend. continue in being such a smart person : )
User avatar #127 to #124 - asheskirata
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
you, sir, are smart. Have my green thumb
#90 - lolfire
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
America. Stay the **** out of Syria.

We're not even backing you up any more. And us and France were basically the only ones up for it.
User avatar #98 to #90 - malifauxdeux
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That's not true. We're backed by Saudi Arabia (you know, the biggest Muslim power) and we would be backed by the U.N if China and Russia would stop ******* us over in the security council for the soul purpose of ******* us over.
User avatar #99 to #98 - lolfire
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
The Arab League have backed out of supporting the US aswell. So that's Saudi Arabia out of the question.

The majority of the UN don't support intervention. Not just China and Russia, so that's your victim complex dismissed.
User avatar #101 to #99 - malifauxdeux
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Only the security council matters when it comes to this. Saudi Arabia is still backing us as of today according to NPR. I find that they're more credible than random people on the internet.
User avatar #175 to #90 - lumpymandude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Oh, are you leading your country now. Sorry, i didn't get that
#92 to #90 - malifauxdeux
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #93 to #90 - enkmaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
So what would you prefer? That the rest of the world just leaves it alone, letting the situation inevitably boil over and **** up other countries? Should we just sit by and let thousands of people die in an extremely complicated ***********? I, and many other Canadians ive talked to, arent happy with what the US wants to do. Saying that, a lot of people think we cant just sit by and do nothing.
User avatar #94 to #93 - lolfire
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Yeah.

America is not the world police. They need to learn that.
User avatar #95 to #94 - enkmaster
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Yeah, lets just leave it to the UN....oh wait. The UN never does anything useful due to the divided members.
User avatar #97 to #95 - lolfire
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
That's democracy.
You can't say your way is right because you want it.
That's just not how it works.
User avatar #154 to #95 - coolcalx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
yeah... The US kind of runs the United Nations.

there's a reason the headquarters is in New York, and you can thank Woodrow Wilson for it.
User avatar #157 to #90 - nitsuan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I agree we should stay out, but last I heard was that France was still up for it.
#166 to #90 - anon id: 325a3f58
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
I like how if America ignores other countries businesses they call Americans selfish and heartless.

But if America does some way to support/solve an issue everyone says America is just butting into unnecessary things.

There is no end in complaints to the country with the most power (military).
User avatar #131 to #90 - riarden
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Because telling us to stay out on fj is really gonna help you out.
User avatar #132 to #131 - lolfire
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/01/2013) [-]
Meh, it's a conversation starter.
#194 - mojobringer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #200 to #194 - vatra
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
The UN*..
User avatar #208 to #200 - GAC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
You...... I like you
User avatar #209 to #208 - vatra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Thanks mate!
#164 - twofreegerbils
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
>there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!
>can you confirm this?
>no...
>lets wreck their **** anyways!!

>there are chemical weapons being used in Syria!
>can you confirm this?
>no.... No actual confirmation has been provided for the use of chemical weapons being used by the SAA. The supposed strike took place when the UN weapons inspectors were in the country, which would have been the most unlikely time for the SAA to approve a chemical weapon attack. It doesn't add up.
>lets wreck their **** anyways!!

Yes goy, good goy, it's definitely not about oil at all.
#197 to #164 - ajweston
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
They didn't find the nuclear material they were looking for (it was there before the gulf war, but was gotten rid of in between then and 2003 according to the iraqi foreign minister) but let's not forget that chemical weapons are WMD's too and Iraq had a ton of them. Also Syria's not exporting to the US right now and hasn't exported more than a 1000 barrels in a year (out of several hundreds of thousands) since the late 90's.
#195 to #164 - sephirothpwnz
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
.... We KNOW that chemical weapons have been used, what we Don't know is who used them. get your facts right.

We as the united states must make a statement we will not allow the use of chemical weapons.

"do not command what you cannot enforce"-Sophocles
User avatar #168 to #164 - ainteasybeincheesy
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
In all honesty we get virtually no oil from Syria... Just thought I'd let you know.
#171 to #168 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Oh, we definitely don't get oil from Syria, but Syria is allied with Iran, which is a huge roadblock in our path towards middle eastern black gold.
#178 to #171 - kaslin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
We really don't get that much from the middle east anymore... www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
#199 to #178 - TheInvader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2013) [-]
Oh, we do get all lot of Oil from the Middle East but Syria has less oil than North America all together: www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=88