Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#39 - pyrocos (09/10/2013) [-]
Yeah cause leaving alone helpless people to ignorant muslimic dicators is a really cool thing
#45 to #39 - reaperriley (09/10/2013) [-]
If its our job to save people from dictators then why do cuba, china, north korea and a bunch of other countries still exist? Oh, that's right....
User avatar #57 to #45 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
It's not the job of the USA to save people from dictators, but to enforce international laws. If the US does not do anything, it sends a clear message to all dictators in the world. That message being that ITS OK TO USE WEAPONS LIKE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND NOBODY WILL DO ANYTHING. Don't be so ignorant, the issue is far more complex than you think it is and you must look at the big picture.
#180 to #57 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
Pretty sure it's the international communities job to enforce international law, not just the US's. And the US doesn't give a shit about chemical weapons, Israel has already used them and so have countless others.
User avatar #182 to #180 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure, any country can enforce international law. The only "international community" is the UN and the UN can't do crap because Russia can veto it. I wish people like you could google shit better.
#188 to #182 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
The point of international law that if it is broken the entire international community enforces it, not just the US, just because Russia isn't sucking the US's dick doesn't mean we just subvert the entire UN. I wish people like you would actually think for a fucking second instead of trying to invade every country on a whim.
User avatar #191 to #188 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
Then there is the Issue of Sovereignty related to international law which reads as follows:

"Practically, sovereignty means that one state cannot demand that another state take any particular internal action. For example, if Canada did not approve of a Brazilian plan to turn a large section of Brazil’s rainforest into an amusement park, the Canadian reaction is limited by Brazil’s sovereignty. Canada may meet with the Brazilian government to try to convince them to halt the project. Canada may bring the issue before the UN to survey the world’s opinion of the project. Canada may even make politically embarrassing public complaints in the world media. However, Canada cannot simply tell Brazil to stop the rainforest project and expect Brazil to obey."

Russia doesn't have to suck the US's dick, chemical weapons are clearly used on Syria and Russia threatened to retaliate if the US attacked Syria. Please tell me how it's a great idea for chemical weapons to be used without consequences because Russia has the power to ve But then in case you didn't know, Russia now wants Syria to turn in all the chemical weapons, how about that huh?
#194 to #191 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
Except there isn't any clear evidence the Syrian government used chemical weapons at all, so saying because chemical weapons were used we just have to attack somebody, anybody is just plain out retarded and irrational, again, think for a fucking second. Russia is vetoing because the US wants to strike one of its allies based on conjecture, and as well it should. We would veto the everfucking shit out of Russia if it decided one day, oh Israel may have killed a shitload of people, Russia isn't the bad guy here... for once.
User avatar #197 to #194 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
Then why did Russia practically demanded Syria to turn in the chemical weapons to an international organization to be dismantled? Don't kid yourself thinking that Assad is such goodie and would never do anything like that. Let's remember that he is a dictator that has been in power for decades, let's also not forget that the tactical nuke that exploded on Syria which was possibly launched by Israel caused a very special mushroom cloud that would only be caused by the explosion of a chemical weapons lab.

Really, you should stop trying to convince yourself that Assad would never do such thing.
#200 to #197 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
Russia demanded the weapons because the US was on the edge of their seat to go to war, whether the chemicals were used by rebels or the government russia knew that would be symbolic enough for the US to stop its crusade. And the "evidence" linked above was produced by the same people who said there were WMD's in Iraq, and look how reliable that turned out to be.
User avatar #202 to #200 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
So we're making facts out of assumptions now? Well, since you absolutely have no proof to back up your statements I believe I'm just wasting my time here.

But before I go, tell me something. Is Syria going to turn in their own chemical weapons or the homemade chemical weapons you assume the rebels used? I sure hope the rebels are nice enough to give them to Assad, and oh man those rebels surely fooled the US government and Russia since they think it's Assad's chemical weapons.
#203 to #202 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
I doubt they'll hand over anything, Russia will just go "Oh syria gave us some weapons" just to cool the US off.

And I am assuming, but at least i'm not believing a known inaccurate source.
User avatar #205 to #203 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
And according to you, what organization would be an accurate source?
#206 to #205 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
CIA and government reports about the chemical weapons.
User avatar #207 to #206 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
Man, you just went full retarded or you are trying to troll. Anyway goodbye.
#209 to #207 - devout feminist (09/11/2013) [-]
Ad hominems, looks like your argument is the flimsy one here.
User avatar #74 to #57 - thebestpieever (09/11/2013) [-]
It is not the job of the United States to police the world. And don't have the right nor the duty to go around enforcing justice in the world. Not to mention the more than shady stuff that they do around the world.

Striking at Syria will only keep that negative policy alive. It will cost young men their lives. All for what? For some ill-conceived notion that the US, can and should take actions to stop this kind of thing? News flash: it hasn't worked before. Leave Russia alone, they are not the problem. But you really don't wanna get China on your back, and especially not for a reason as retarded as jingoistic ego from being the policemen of the world.
User avatar #132 to #74 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
First of all, the US doesn't even need to put troops on Syria. Second of all, the us is and has always been the "world police" because it's the only country in the world capable of doing so. Yes, Iraq was a mistake, but we can't look the other way when it's clear chemical weapons were used in Syria. Then you go around saying "leave Russia alone" well my friend let me tell you something. Russia has the power to veto any resolution through the UN and since Russia has a shitload of interests in Syria and they even have a naval base there then obviously any resolution through the UN is impossible. Then you say that you don't want China on your back, please, do you think China is stupid enough to start a third world war? Do you know how much money China makes off the US? do you know how much Chinese crap is sold on the US? Do you think the Chinese are stupid enough to kill the cash cow? I don't think so. Neither are the Russians stupid enough to start a WWIII and Putin will not risk losing his precious throne trying to correct the mistake of Assad for using chemical weapons. The Russians already called for Syria to turn in their Chemical weapons to prevent the US from attacking Assad.

To be honest, you just spew shit without knowing many details and all you do is spread misinformation from assumptions and from your hate towards the USA. I would also love to know what country you are from since you hate the USA so much.
#88 to #74 - kanbabrif (09/11/2013) [-]
Syria accepted russias disarmament plan. They are going to put the weapons under international control before russia dismantles them.
www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139109613395758.html
User avatar #58 to #57 - reaperriley (09/11/2013) [-]
You know what I see? A war with Russia. Russia just stated that if we attack Syria, Russia will back them up. So we attack a dumbshit dictator who needs to be wiped from this world, and all of a sudden we have another superpower breathing down our throat. As much as I want the Syrian government punished. I don't see a reason to trust the rebels or go to war with Russia over it.
User avatar #60 to #58 - ronyx (09/11/2013) [-]
You are uninformed. If the US doesn't act, Israel will do so as Syria already sank a submarine from Israel and in retaliation it is suspected that Israel used a tactical nuke on a bunker on syria. You can find the video on youtube of the mushroom cloud. So Israel will attack and Turkey will attack too because they want a piece of the land from Syria. Russia is not stupid enough to go into war, far too many interests from Russia are at stake not only in Syria but globally. Plus Russia already told Syria to turn in all chemical weapons so the US doesn't have the need to attack.
User avatar #41 to #39 - willdabeast (09/10/2013) [-]
And it's our job to fight for them? No. Nowhere have we agreed that we would protect the middle east from dictators.
#232 to #41 - pyrocos (09/11/2013) [-]
So if you see a kid who gets beaten by a bunch of older kids you just walk by and say "I didn't agree to that" ?
 Friends (0)