War in Syria. . fic The excuse we' far. . s 3 A The Patriots u they knew war was good for the economy. -- They Weft's their great "ism" s_!’ Welcome maxim’: for
x
Click to expand

War in Syria

fic The excuse we' far. . s 3 A
The Patriots u
they knew war was good for the economy. --
They Weft's their great "ism" s_!’
Welcome maxim’: for t s 'w' ith he faith --
t Give yoursel up 103% whate,
better yoursef -
so we' ll do whats I’ it
Esp -new wag:
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+488
Views: 28350
Favorited: 57
Submitted: 09/01/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to emmerich submit to reddit

Comments(156):

[ 156 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#87 - nehger **User deleted account** (09/02/2013) [-]
>Obama strikes in Syria

******** Why does America needs to be so agressive again! Look at all the children that died during these attacks!!

>Obama doesn't strike in Syria

******** America!? you can't just let all these people die! Look at all the children that died during these attacks!!


It's a no win situation
#92 to #87 - smallest ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
Pretty much sums up the documentary "Without Us" When we get involved less people die and we are hated. When we don't more die and we are shunned for not helping like we have in the past. I don't understand this world anymore. people cry out for someone to help but when someone reaches out for them they are criticized and are told they are doing it for "Their own gain" clearly we have much to gain in every conflicted we have gone in trillions in debt and we still reach out to help only to be told we are the bad guys.
inb4 " you spell like a 3rd grader I ****** know and I don't care.
#106 to #92 - lyshematenel (09/02/2013) [-]
You bombed my blood in Novi Sad. You know I am pretty sure America has plenty of cool people, only they dont have enough power to change their country.

Anyway I ******* hope for a III WW, where Israel and the US will lose.
User avatar #125 to #106 - smallest ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
we shall see I guess.
#99 to #92 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
It's simply a matter of people being different, there will always be criticism, no matter what.
#97 to #87 - restfullwicked (09/02/2013) [-]
america and the UN for that matter should enforce the rules of fair warfare to protect civilians. that does not mean it has the right to pick sides in a rebellion. as harsh as it may be, they syrians need to work this out on their own.
User avatar #135 to #97 - zzforrest (09/02/2013) [-]
It's sad that the first people who actually assert the rules and try to enforce them are being characterized as rule bending power mongers. If we don't do it, then whoever does will get praised much more than we would.
#139 to #135 - restfullwicked (09/02/2013) [-]
america has spent the last 40 years arming rebels then fighting wars to take the arms away from the same groups. one of the rambo films is dedicated to the taliban because they were Americas allies at the time. The british are no better but the worry is that america will use its influence to put someone in power that will place american interests first.
in situations like this its best to just leave it the **** alone. makes no difference what nation suggests it because i will say the same thing. enforce rules of engagement, but leave them to sort their own **** out.
#104 - CakemanRPG (09/02/2013) [-]
MGR thread
MGR thread
#164 to #104 - popnotes (02/09/2014) [-]
late as 			****		 but who cares
late as **** but who cares
#88 - DeathclawRulez (09/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#70 - acidrapper (09/02/2013) [-]
In America
#67 - oxYKellark (09/02/2013) [-]
MFW when anyone says    
 OIL
MFW when anyone says
OIL
User avatar #60 - kennyh (09/02/2013) [-]
I can hear the exploding heads of all the PolSci majors reading this.
#50 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
>MFW Congress is on vacation when they are supposed to be voting on a war

What a ******* joke.
#84 to #50 - allhailshrek (09/02/2013) [-]
>be me
>not looked up on the progress of the Syrian situation in days
>school ****
>decide it's time I attempted to get caught up
>find out about the bill
>discover Congress is on vacation
>when international tensions in Middle East are highest they've been in years
>when they should be voting on weather we should be going to war or not
>tfw they don't do their jobs, never vote on anything and still go on vacation at literally the worst time that they could have chosen
#73 - ragingflamingos (09/02/2013) [-]
The fact is that every single ******* time the West involves itself with the Middle East in any way, shape or form in comes back to bite us. This has been the case since the Crusades. You'd think people would get the hint already and just let them sort their own **** out by now.
User avatar #39 - RlCK (09/02/2013) [-]
Am I the only one who thinks that looks like Penn Jillette?
#26 - Awesomenessniss (09/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #3 - alimais (09/01/2013) [-]
There are still people who think the US should do it.
I would laugh if they fire the Tomahawk missiles and Syria shoots back the Yakhont missiles and sink one or more warships. Also Russia gave them a anti-missile systems which can shoot down a soccer ball at sonic-speed.
User avatar #4 to #3 - alimais (09/01/2013) [-]
this system is anti-air too
#53 to #3 - mattymc (09/02/2013) [-]
the system has not been proven in combat and israei commandos destroyed half of the launchers
User avatar #105 to #53 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
there is a interactive map of Syria which shows they still have plenty of launchers everywhere in Syria I heard they attacked a missile depot with some of the anti-ship rockets (there are still enough of those in Syria)
#107 to #105 - mattymc (09/02/2013) [-]
regardless...assad would face complete annihilation if he attacks a us naval vessel, i doubt he is that stupid
User avatar #112 to #107 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
I assume he will make his move when the US makes his move and if it happens it will be a really nice showdown. US attacks Syria and for that Syria,Hezbollah, Iran attack Israel and Russia attacks Saudi Arabia (a Saudi prince threatened Putin in person with Chechen terrorists ). Also the Vietnamese had pretty ********* too and the managed to fight back the US troops.
#159 to #112 - mattymc (09/03/2013) [-]
also think about what you are saying in Geographic sense, it makes no sense
Iran would have to attack through Iraq and neutral Jordan
Russia would have to attack through the entire middle east
I highly doubt either is willing to risk a world war (not to mention attacking through each other)
#157 to #112 - mattymc (09/03/2013) [-]
that's not going to happen
User avatar #15 to #3 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
It's funny because you're implying a nation that can't handle a few insurgents even when it's not worried with brutality or war crimes can take on the most advanced military on the planet.

inb4 "[Insert European military] is more advanced", we're not spending 3 times you're GDP on our military for nothing
User avatar #109 to #15 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
You are still stuck in the past, those insurgents are losing pretty bad which most likely is the reason why Obama wants to take action.
User avatar #111 to #109 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
Stuck in the past of what? 2 years ago? They were winning all of last year.
User avatar #114 to #111 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
Stuck in the past.
It's not like they had the nice Russian bling bling right at the beginning but the "rebels" were already fully supported by US and Saudi Arabia (maybe Britain too not sure)
User avatar #118 to #114 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
There's a huuuuuuuge ******* difference between a rebel army with free AK-47's and a few Centurion tanks, and an actual army with missiles and a navy and organization and training...
User avatar #120 to #118 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
That's where you are wrong again. If it just were AK-47s they wouldn't even need anything from Russia. They got a really big variety of different weapons. even 50cal snipers and Stingers
User avatar #121 to #120 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
Small arms still don't count.
User avatar #122 to #121 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
"small arms"..... are you being serious ?
They also have trucks with FLAKS on the back and a huge variety of different rocket launchers.
User avatar #123 to #122 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
And a few centurion tanks.

I thought we covered this already.
User avatar #126 to #123 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
they are not invincible
User avatar #127 to #126 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
The rebels are the ones with the tanks...

I mean the Syrian army has them too, but I never mentioned that.
User avatar #129 to #127 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
Ahhhh, yeah you are right but that's old news they are probably already destroyed because the jihadist group of the "rebels" had them
User avatar #131 to #129 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
I'm sure a lot of them are gone, but they've probably got more by now.

As for jihadist or not, I don't care I just think

a) America needs to learn to be more ok with violence, especially in war

b) Having a country controlled by a faction which is grateful to you is almost always useful
User avatar #136 to #131 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
Then you should support Assad.
I assume you are not a Muslim and if you are not a Muslim those "rebels" would execute you immediately (if not worse).
The problem with the rebels is that most over 94% aren't from Syria they are Islamist-extremists from all over the world (even ******* AL-Queda) who believe that they get some virgins if they kill people from the opposition (Assad, non extremist Muslims, Christians and co). In Islam there a many different sectors like in Christianity but the US choose to arm the extremists.
User avatar #138 to #136 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
Something tells me that's an inaccurate portrayal.

Why would the government arm a group that has a vested interest in their destruction?

I mean handing people guns to fight Russians in the 80's is one thing, but the way you describe it there's literally no benefit. And whether you like them or not, you can't honestly believe that a world government is stupid enough to do that without knowing something you don't. Not even North Korea is that retarded.
User avatar #143 to #138 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
Also this because you have mentioned it ^^

i.imgur.com/6cspyXk.jpg
User avatar #141 to #138 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
Here have a video the commander of the FSA eating some organs. Your gov. is bonkers and horny for some profit like the Islamists for their prophet
Rebel Eats Heart of Syrian Soldier.
#51 to #15 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
It's funny because I was thinking you were talking about the USA when you posted that.

Also it's a ******* civil war, you can't just instantly win that. How long did the USA take to handle insurgents? It's been over a decade and the war is still going on. Have a sense of self-awareness, idiot.

The USA isn't going to run them over like they did Iraq. Iraq had absolutely no modern air-defense. They had ******* flak guns for christ sake.
#19 to #15 - darthtorn (09/02/2013) [-]
It took US military a decade to sort things out in Iraq and Afghanisthan.
User avatar #69 to #19 - traelos (09/02/2013) [-]
Yeah, because we weren't just willing to clear out a neighborhood.

Seriously the U.S. army walks around with the biggest ******* stick on the planet, but we tie both our hands behind our back so we can only wave it around in our teeth.

inb4 liberalfag thinks the U.S. army practices brutality
#95 to #3 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
You stupid if you think Syria would have a chance of striking back against an american attack. No matter how much the russians have supplied them
User avatar #101 to #95 - alimais (09/02/2013) [-]
the US soldier even said they would be really scared to engage Syria. I bet you are still thinking the Russians use 20y/o tech
User avatar #12 to #3 - Alchemyst ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
The joke's on them: we're not launching soccer balls.
User avatar #34 to #12 - lynchdude (09/02/2013) [-]
yeah we're launching Footballs

User avatar #163 to #113 - Alchemyst ONLINE (09/04/2013) [-]
That's what I thought of when I replied.
-15
#14 to #12 - alimais has deleted their comment [-]
#38 to #12 - gastrofizzy (09/02/2013) [-]
I would thumb the **** outa that, but I'm thumb banned.
JOLLY GOOD JOB, SIR!
User avatar #68 to #12 - becefalus (09/02/2013) [-]
If we were to launch balls that them they would footballs.
User avatar #160 to #68 - becefalus (09/03/2013) [-]
wtf.....
User avatar #59 - peapodsarecool (09/02/2013) [-]
THE HYPEST ****
User avatar #115 to #59 - harbingerwolf (09/02/2013) [-]
NANOMACHINES!
User avatar #93 - psyachu (09/02/2013) [-]
Source, please?
User avatar #94 to #93 - lazersharkheads (09/02/2013) [-]
That would be Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance.
#96 to #94 - psyachu (09/02/2013) [-]
Okay, thank you very much!
User avatar #25 - generaljosh (09/02/2013) [-]
The Assad regime has chemical weapons, and has proven that they're willing to use them for crowd control, of all things. If airstrikes can reduce their ability to carry out such atrocities, why shouldn't the US go ahead?

This has nothing to do with the economy. No one is talking about an invasion. Obama and Cameron want to authorize air strikes and additional civilian aid, nothing more.
User avatar #27 to #25 - eklipsbrate (09/02/2013) [-]
Oil and natural gas.

It has everything to do with the economy and nothing to do with chemical weapons.
User avatar #28 to #27 - generaljosh (09/02/2013) [-]
Oil is not the motivator that everyone believes it to be. Contrary to popular belief, the US has one of the world's largest supplies of domestic oil.

Natural gas is not something that's worth attacking a country for. It's used for local power generation and heating, not exportation. It's so plentiful that trying to sell it would be like selling oxygen. Sure, it's useful for some products and may be hard to extract, but it's available everywhere.
User avatar #29 to #28 - eklipsbrate (09/02/2013) [-]
What are you talking about? Oil is the backbone of the US economy, how is that not a good motivator ?
User avatar #31 to #29 - generaljosh (09/02/2013) [-]
www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

Look at that graph a few paragraphs down. According to the Energy Inforation Administration, the US obtains only 12.9% of its oil from the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia, a non-volatile source of oil, constitutes 8.1% of that. That means that, excluding Saudi Arabia, the entire Middle East contributes 4.8% of America's oil.

Pundits love to exaggerate oil's effect on diplomacy, but in reality oil causes more disputes with Canada than with the Middle East.

And no, oil is not the backbone of the US economy. High technology and services are. The US does not have the world's largest GDP because of its oil exports or imports.
#33 to #29 - mcronq (09/02/2013) [-]
He's talking about the truth, at current prices American oil is not the most economical source to pull from, but with time prices rise affording oil companies the ability to go and pull from more expensive sources of oil. When oil reaches about $135 a barrel America will pull from its own vast resources and become a net exporter of oil. That is projected to happen around 2030. Obviously it won't be all at once, America is already seeing a large rise in domestic production.
User avatar #46 to #27 - Ruspanic (09/02/2013) [-]
******** , it has to do with Obama trying to look tough on the Assad regime and talking about a "red line", and then when chemical weapons are actually used, having to stand by his words or risk looking like a spineless demagogue.

Can you name a time the US actually went to war for oil?
#98 to #46 - eklipsbrate (09/02/2013) [-]
The reason is never officially ''for oil'', it's always people getting oppressed and tyrants and so on and so 
			
			You need to login to view this link
			
		just so happens that some of the regimes that the US fought were the ones the US put on seats of power and it also just so happens that the people are being oppressed on lands with oil. It's not really about the oil, it's about control and power. Energy is just the easiest means of control.   
   
Also if you want a name, Iraq.
The reason is never officially ''for oil'', it's always people getting oppressed and tyrants and so on and so You need to login to view this link just so happens that some of the regimes that the US fought were the ones the US put on seats of power and it also just so happens that the people are being oppressed on lands with oil. It's not really about the oil, it's about control and power. Energy is just the easiest means of control.

Also if you want a name, Iraq.
User avatar #110 to #98 - Ruspanic (09/02/2013) [-]
Yeah, no. We ousted Saddam Hussein a decade ago, and we still didn't get Iraq's oil.

What's wrong with our official reasons for invading Iraq? US and British intelligence (falsely) believed that Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator, possessed biological and chemical weapons in violation of international agreements. We thought so partly because he was spreading the rumors himself, and partly because he'd previously been known to use chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people. The national security concern there is that those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists, and of course Hussein himself wasn't exactly friendly to the US.
Plus there was the whole neoconservative belief that spreading democracy in the Middle East would make those countries less likely to attack us (Democratic Peace Theory).

The Gulf War might be a better example, because we came to the aid of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia largely to protect our oil interests. But we were already getting oil from those countries, and the Gulf War was not an act of aggression on the part of the US.

Afghanistan doesn't have oil. Neither do the Balkan states.

Libya has oil, but we don't get much of it.

Vietnam? Korea? Nope.
User avatar #156 to #110 - eklipsbrate (09/03/2013) [-]
The Balkan states do have oil and the rights to it were bought by an US corporation,at least in Bosnia. The whole Middle East is filled with countries with oil and the Middle east is the only place where the US military is currently active.
The official reasons are just excuses just like 9/11 was an excuse to push the Patriot act.
We can stop arguing since you'll continue to believe that they're doing it for the right reasons and I will continue to believe in the opposite.
User avatar #158 to #156 - Ruspanic (09/03/2013) [-]
Look, even if you don't believe the official reasons, if we're at war in the Middle East for oil, we're doing a pretty ****** job of getting it.
#40 to #25 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
no, it hasn't been proved, it is speculations. there is very little evidence about who used chemical weapons.
User avatar #35 to #25 - jesusismysavior (09/02/2013) [-]
A large part of the opposition are islamic extremists (Al-Nursa, allied with Al-Qaeda), who are being armed by the US. They massacre sivilians, but act like they are freedom-fighters. USA has Guantanamo, lies and monitors their own people, and proscecutes them for being whistle-blowers. Still Obama wants to attack Assad because of moral reasons. USA just wants another war, because the weapons business wants to make more money. 91 % of americans are against United States involvement in Syria.
User avatar #37 to #35 - generaljosh (09/02/2013) [-]
While the US government is involved in many morally questionable activities, I would think that everyone can agree that the gassing of hundreds of innocent men, women, and children is something entirely different from the torture of known terrorists and persecution of whistle-blowers.

The "weapons business" starting a war in order to make money is something entirely out of Hollywood. A few airstrikes against Syrian chemical plants does not exactly necessitate a new generation of fighter craft.
User avatar #42 to #25 - LtMcG ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
From a military standpoint, how do you reduce Assad's troops ability to use chemical weapons.

The first option would be to strike the believed chemical weapons storage. We run the risk of civilian casualties not only because of the bombing itself, but also because of the leak of the chemical weapon. Also, not all intelligence is 100%. There will be a miss and we may hit a storage facility that was not part of our objective.

The second option is to remove Assad's means of using the weapons which would include his filed artillery. So we wipe out all of Assad's indirect fire units to prevent chemical weapon usage. However, chemical can still be delivered by truck and detonated remotely. While you limit its usage, you ultimately did not stop anything. Furthermore, you deteriorate his forces giving a significant edge to the rebel forces.

The third option is to just wipe out the entire regime's military force. This completely misses the objective and allows the rebel forces (which are closely tied to terrorist organizations) to seize power. Civil unrest will still continue.

The only other option is to use special forces or some ground force to dismantle the chemical weapons themselves. Which obviously no one will agree

This is a situation that cannot be won with cruise missiles and air strikes. This isn't call of duty guys.
#140 to #42 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
But what you are claiming is that the USA can't afford to take risks. Risks are part of war, an inherent part of it. Sure intelligence is never 100%accurate, and collateral damage is a risk, but better to risk hurting those around the chemical facilities, than to merely resign oneself to letting those men and children and women die to the regime that is oppressing them.

Next you say that taking out his artillery wont stop anything in the end. Um, you do know that whether or not chemical weapons are used is as much to do with the ease to use them as it is with the effectiveness they have in getting rid of large groups of people? If you take away the easy way to deliver chemical weapons, chances are you are taking away any and all credibility the regime has the next time we find out they've used chemical weapons, because the attack would have had to been meticulously planned out for the delivery to hit the right place. You say it isn't COD, but you don't even know what you're saying.
User avatar #147 to #140 - LtMcG ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
I do know what I am saying because as a member of the military who is neighbored to a chemical corps unit, I understand how these sorts of weapons can be delivered. Chemical weapons do not require indirect fire units or even direct fire units for that matter. It can be deployed with remote capabilities like timed releases and even pressure releases (like a landmine).

Furthermore, chemical weapons serve two purposes. The first of course is to produce mass casualties. The second is to deter enemy forces from using the area. If Sarine gas is detected in the area, the enemy will not use it simply because they have nothing to counter the situation. This can be used to funnel forces as well as prevent the enemy from gaining significant ground and high valued terrain.

Risks are a part of war. However, the risks involved do not meet the benefits of the actions. In the end, the risks are too great for the possible actions we could take. We will create either a worse or no better situation from our actions.
User avatar #119 to #42 - bloodyjackson (09/02/2013) [-]
The point is to tell the world "Hey guys, if you use chemical weapons we're going to missile your house". It's kind of petty and illogical, but these guys just want to send a message.
#89 to #42 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
Either we bomb them and risk collateral damage, or we do nothing and risk everything. I know that if America was using chemical weapons on their own soil, I would want Israel (Or any 1st world nation willing to help) to do whatever is necessary to ensure that as few people die as possible.
User avatar #90 to #89 - LtMcG ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
We are not risking anything by not using military action. One of these days, we need to trust the UN to resolve the issue or we can continue its lack of authority. If this is truly an international incident that violates the Geneva conventions and UN resolutions, then the world needs to stand up to Assad. Not just the United States and France.
#86 to #42 - anon (09/02/2013) [-]
Thank you
#149 - hhhghhg ONLINE (09/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #116 - harbingerwolf (09/02/2013) [-]
So does this mean we can finally have Metal Gears now?
#91 - blanketandpillow (09/02/2013) [-]
I'm just wondering here, and I'm not taking any sides because I haven't really been paying attention (I probably should though...), but what do you guys think would happen if America doesn't help? Would they get just as much **** as they are for helping?
User avatar #133 to #91 - zzforrest (09/02/2013) [-]
Basically since it's illegal to use chemical weapons ( Geneva conventions ) if nobody acts on the fact that they used chemical weapons then they might do it again, which would be really bad in the end. America was really ready to do this, but russia was like "Nope, ur just lookin for power and monies lel" so basically if we do nothing, chemical weapons might become a thing, if we do something world war 3 happens and really both sound pretty bad.
User avatar #102 to #91 - emyris (09/02/2013) [-]
From what I understand Obama and the allies are basically seeking to punish the Syrian president for using chemical weapons because it violates one of the Geneva promises - no use of chemical weapons in war (since 2011 there has been a bit of a rebellion/civil war going on there). They feel that the best way to get the Syrian president to never use them again is to say BITCH THAT AINT OKAY and make a couple strikes - which they are publicizing, in bits and pieces, the schematics of those strikes.

They are NOT seeking an all out war, from what I know of.
#128 - redrock (09/02/2013) [-]
>Be Geneva Convention
>Everyone agrees that no one is allowed to use chemical weapons
>Also agree that other states can intervene if chemical weapons are used on humanitarian grounds
> ********************** .png

>Flash forward, 2013
>Be America
>Everyone thinks it's your responsibility to act as U.N.'s unofficial army
>Everyone also hates you for this
>Literally no pleasing the nations of the world
>Syria found to be using chemical weapons
>We don't intervene then it sets a precedent for other states not intervening to protect Geneva Convention principles when there is clear evidence
>We do intervene everyone hates us
>Everyone hates us already, let's intervene
>President seeks congressional approval, wants to do it right for the first time in 50 years
>World in an uproar
>"Murica just wants to project power, has to **** up everything"
>World leaders were silent in Egypt, Lybia. Care now for some reason
>Russia wants to protect weapons sales to Assad regime, says there's no evidence of chemical weapons
>Domestic retards claim we're helping Al Qaeda
>Of course Al Qaeda has it's hand in the pot, doesn't mean they're running the show


TLR America is trying to do the right thing, the right way for once and it isn't good enough for anybody
#162 to #128 - anon (09/04/2013) [-]
The fall of the Syrian government will just be the beginning, since there is already in-fighting between secular rebels and jihadists.
I say keep away from Syria, it's a bad situation to get trapped in.
#130 to #128 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
The part about America expected to be U.N's unofficial army is bull. Britain has what, the fourth most powerful military in the world (surprising I know but true) and involves itself a lot in the same way America does. However I agree that I dont understand why people are getting on Americas back about acting against  Syria and I dont understand why Britain isnt doing the same. While I feel an all out war would be to extreme, its better than doing nothing and letting them break the rules. If you make rules never let people get away with breaking them, or others will follow. And I dont think its a good idea to give North Korea any ideas -_-
The part about America expected to be U.N's unofficial army is bull. Britain has what, the fourth most powerful military in the world (surprising I know but true) and involves itself a lot in the same way America does. However I agree that I dont understand why people are getting on Americas back about acting against Syria and I dont understand why Britain isnt doing the same. While I feel an all out war would be to extreme, its better than doing nothing and letting them break the rules. If you make rules never let people get away with breaking them, or others will follow. And I dont think its a good idea to give North Korea any ideas -_-
#145 to #130 - drsandshark (09/02/2013) [-]
I beg to differ... America is the Unofficial UN Army. Simply put, America is willing to shell out more money, so it's really hard for the UN to say "No America don't put your tax dollars, loans and bonds into the global economy by buying foreign made weapons, armaments, and other war material." America puts the money out, and so she does what she wants. Britain, being 3rd by the way in at least how much money they invest in military, isn't even on the same level even if it magically absorbed nine of the other top ten military expenditures!
User avatar #148 to #145 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
Its third??? **** me. But yeah it may be not have anywhere near the amount of money or size of military that America has. But if you work it as ratios of how much they have compared to how much they give, America wont be too far ahead. Ahead yes but not too far. So other countries should still get credit for what they do give.
User avatar #151 to #148 - drsandshark (09/02/2013) [-]
If I send 10% of my 1,000,000 man army to attack a country with 10% of your 1,000 man army, should I have to give your army half the spoils just because we gave the same ratio of troops?
User avatar #152 to #151 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
That would be different because your dealing with something physical. But both countries should receive equal credit, obviously the bigger country should receive more of the 'spoils' because it has the bigger population therefore needing the 'spoils' more. But when its written in the history book, both countries should receive equal credit for their effort.
#134 to #130 - redrock (09/02/2013) [-]
I've studied North Korea, they're in no position to do anything and are barely solvent as a state. They just grand stand for internal power struggles and so they can get international aid without having to stop their human rights abuses.

As for American world policing, sure we involve England (and France) a lot or they involve themselves but where is the finger always pointing? This isn't the Bush/Blair era anymore and we aren't talking about the Falklands, the world doesn't look at America and Britain as a package. Everything is seen as an American initiative.

What I mean by "unofficial army" is really that the US has taken to world policing. Everyone hates us for it but in some ways it's necessary. Some times we take our allies into the fight with us, like with NATO after the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks, but it's still our face on it. So now we're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. We do, we're assholes. We don't, we aren't living up to the world's expectations and will be blamed for what happens next. It's just like ******* Rwanda.
User avatar #142 to #134 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
Your right, they arent in a position to do anything. Yet they still make threats towards America. Anyone dumb enough to threaten America to begin in is probably dumb enough to try and break a few rules (which they have been doing). Fair enough, your right a large majority of the public will view America as the face of these things. However there are generally twonks who look at something on the internet or tabloid and get very angry very quickly. However I thinks good America gets the heat because it can take it without feeling any REAL backlash. Seen as though its the most powerful out of its allies it feels fitting that if anyones gonna take the political hit it should be them. However I would much prefer it if people would stop being stupid and took the situation for what it is and stop expecting governemts (especially Americas) to perform miracles when it comes to the economy and foreign policy
#144 to #142 - redrock (09/02/2013) [-]
Nk just feels secure because China wouldn't put up with a US/SK attack on NK. China might hate NK but it absolutely doesn't want the US flexing any more muscle in Asia. It's like a bratty kid brother of a stronger older brother, running his mouth a talking **** because he can.

I don't agree with the US taking all of the blame for military or political actions though. It isn't a fair distribution and there really isn't any reason to think the US has any responsibility to do it. Give us **** for what we do, not the combined total **** for everything the west does.

I do agree, however, about ignorant people bitching. Sure, it'd be nice to explore non-militaristic options but I don't suppose many people can figure out what those would be and whether they'd even be effective. For now action must be taken and it seems only military action will do the job
User avatar #146 to #144 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
Agreed 100%. I do believe we just had an intelligent conversation. On funnyjunk. Mother ******* flagpole right here.
User avatar #150 to #146 - kaosminett (09/02/2013) [-]
CANADA
User avatar #153 to #150 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
ENGLAND (point?)
User avatar #154 to #153 - kaosminett (09/02/2013) [-]
I don't know, but I learned a lot reading your guys' posts!
User avatar #155 to #154 - skeletalbaron (09/02/2013) [-]
Well thats good but I was just expressing opinion. I've not studied history beyond 20th century foreign policy, league of nations and both world wars. So I wouldnt take me too seriously, but im glad you enjoyed reading it
[ 156 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)