I'll save you a seat to hell. .. I really don't get this point of view - like everything was fine and dandy to begin with, everyone skipping about and wishing each other "Good day, sir!&qu
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

I'll save you a seat to hell

  • Recommend tagsx

Comments(170):

[ 170 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#17 - MasterManiac (09/06/2013) [+] (25 replies)
I really don't get this point of view - like everything was fine and dandy to begin with, everyone skipping about and wishing each other "Good day, sir!" and exchanging hugs as a form of currency. The country is a 						*******					 mess. There's a civil war which has already left over 100,000 people dead and the only reason that other nations are now getting involved is because one of the sides (most likely the current regime) has used chemical weapons (most likely Sarin) to slaughter civilians like animals, which is a complete violation of the Geneva Protocol which means that those who signed the treaty should look to get involved in the conflict to prevent this from happening again. It's not like the US or France or any other country that signed the treaty has suddenly decided "Oh hey. Guess what would be fun - starting another war in the Middle East!".   
   
tl;dr If the Syrians didn't 						****					 it up so badly to begin with we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I really don't get this point of view - like everything was fine and dandy to begin with, everyone skipping about and wishing each other "Good day, sir!" and exchanging hugs as a form of currency. The country is a ******* mess. There's a civil war which has already left over 100,000 people dead and the only reason that other nations are now getting involved is because one of the sides (most likely the current regime) has used chemical weapons (most likely Sarin) to slaughter civilians like animals, which is a complete violation of the Geneva Protocol which means that those who signed the treaty should look to get involved in the conflict to prevent this from happening again. It's not like the US or France or any other country that signed the treaty has suddenly decided "Oh hey. Guess what would be fun - starting another war in the Middle East!".

tl;dr If the Syrians didn't **** it up so badly to begin with we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
#44 - parttimezombie (09/06/2013) [+] (17 replies)
~1,000 killed from the chemical attack. THATS OUR RED LINE. OH GOD. NOT 1,00 PEOPLE!!!

but you know, the 100,000 that have been killed by regular things like bullets and grenades... we are ok with that -_-
#106 - mikoli (09/07/2013) [-]
what i see.
#83 - Freelon (09/06/2013) [+] (1 reply)
User avatar #29 - blackandgold (09/06/2013) [+] (5 replies)
i wish we would let people's problems be their problems but for some reason the government still enjoys playing the role of world police, and it's pissing me off because when i become an old fart i don't wanna have to pay for that ****
User avatar #34 to #33 - tjkskateboarder (09/06/2013) [-]
If chemical weapons were not used I would agree with you. But the Geneva Protocol, something we signed on to, promises that we would intervene if chemical weapons are used. If chemical warfare continues to be used, and we continue to let it slide, it would be like Rwanda and when we broke our promise with the Genocide Convention. We can't break our promise again and put more innocent lives at stake. The right thing to do is more important.
User avatar #4 - JoshOwnsAll (09/06/2013) [+] (10 replies)
why did we stop using massive big bad battlecruisers like the Iowa class in this picture?
they were awesome as ****
#41 - smittywrbmnjnsn (09/06/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Except, we're not attacking Syria to convert it to democracy.

We're attacking it's chemical weapons.
#99 - sirfistalot (09/06/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Remember the Spanish civil war in 1936-1939?
There were also world super powers supporting both sides and guess what happened few years later...

anyway like it was said million times,how the **** shelling a whole country can be peaceful solution (with risk damaging or hitting the nuclear reactor near Damascus)?

How about stop sending guns to "rebels" and also stop training them in border countries with syria...that could help I guess...oh and all It would be lovely to stop sending special groups trained by CIA to syria...that would be great.





#93 - juciefruit ONLINE (09/06/2013) [-]
#79 - BwainPhreeze (09/06/2013) [+] (6 replies)
If america didn't supply minority rebellious groups with the means (weapons) to begin fighting like this, then there wouldn't be a large conflict happening that apparently requires blitzing to 'solve'.   
America wants to 						****					 Iran off by ruining its neighbouring countries with similar governments and beliefs (Shi'ite i think).   
   
tl;dr If 'Muricca didnt get involved earlier, all this conflict wouldnt have stirred up.   
 Please enlighten me if you feel that I am wrong
If america didn't supply minority rebellious groups with the means (weapons) to begin fighting like this, then there wouldn't be a large conflict happening that apparently requires blitzing to 'solve'.
America wants to **** Iran off by ruining its neighbouring countries with similar governments and beliefs (Shi'ite i think).

tl;dr If 'Muricca didnt get involved earlier, all this conflict wouldnt have stirred up.
Please enlighten me if you feel that I am wrong
User avatar #67 - ihatem (09/06/2013) [+] (11 replies)
The U.S. isn't even a democracy, how do you give what you don't have?
Wait...that IS accurate
User avatar #15 - GeorgeTheHax (09/06/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Guys, what happened? Havent watched the news all summer :S
User avatar #20 to #15 - IamWhoIam (09/06/2013) [-]
Obama and the UK want the United States to intervene in Syria the same way that they did in Libya, because Chemical Weapons were used. Controversy is that it was the rebels, the side that the United States supports that used the weapons, not the Syrian Government like first though. There is also talk of American "Advisers" training Anti-Syrian Government Troops, much like they trained the Mujaheddin during the Soviet Incursion in Afghanistan. Many people are against this because many of the Rebels are known terrorist organizations, and are afraid that after they gain power they will go the way of Al-Qaeda and turn on the United States and the West.
#124 - betars (09/07/2013) [+] (3 replies)
Can't have democracy when China and Russia are against it.   
Just saying.
Can't have democracy when China and Russia are against it.
Just saying.
User avatar #8 - trojandetected (09/06/2013) [+] (1 reply)
We need to **** whoever used the chemical weapon If we don't apply this law then everyone will use chemical weapons see that old lady down the road BAMB!
#104 - fargtwo (09/06/2013) [+] (16 replies)
I feel horrible about this, but I'm slightly excited by the prospect of getting to see a proxy war between the US and Iran/Russia.
#38 - whenindoubtsplooge (09/06/2013) [+] (1 reply)
[ 170 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)