Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-01-2013, 07:24 PM   #316
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryCallahan
That's your argument? That because you haven't heard it, then it must not be true?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-U.../dp/067976285X
Yes, somewhere along the 70 or so years since then people who have spent their whole life against the war might have mentioned the fact they were trying to surrender as they were bombed. No one talks about it because it's a rewriting of history after the fact.

We can go back and forth if the bomb was necessary and you probably have my opinion dead wrong, but going back and rewriting the situation to remove any ambiquity is just wrong and tbh, kind of lazy.

And note: Obama should go to Congress if he is not 100% decided on an action. Congress in theory represents the american people, and the people don't want to attack Syria. I don't get how being prudent makes one week.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 07:37 PM   #317
LoPro4u2c
Great young streetballer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 504
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Attacking Syria is just a waste of time now. By now, Syria has moved the important military weapons that they hold dear, the technology that's important to the regime, electronics that they use on a regular basis, etc. If Obama does decide to attack Syria, the locations that are targeted will have nothing but old military weapons and shit that the Assad regime no longer uses.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Syria has a location filled with military goods that the Syrians want the Americans to attack only for the Americans to find out that all that military crap is outdated.
LoPro4u2c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 07:39 PM   #318
Deleterious
Banned
 
Deleterious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,603
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

This is way before the attack published by Dailymail.. Can't find the original article.
Quote:
PUBLISHED: 14:16 EST, 29 January 2013

http://web.archive.org/web/201301292...ame-Assad.html
U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime

#Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying 'the idea is approved by Washington'
#Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was 'totally unacceptable'

Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.
Deleterious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 10:17 PM   #319
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleterious
This is way before the attack published by Dailymail.. Can't find the original article.
I don't doubt the US is looking for provocation but this falls into the "i will believe anything that supports my point" bucket of evidence. Made up shit on top of made up shit cover in made up shit.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 10:17 PM   #320
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacers4ever
Anyone see the video of the rebel ripping the heart and liver of the syrian soldier then eat it Can we stay out of this please
This is my view 100%.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2013, 11:19 PM   #321
oh the horror
NBA Legend
 
oh the horror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 15,417
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

So on the news they're interviewing some Joe Politician, and dude says "I don't see how this would be a threat to our national security"


So....involving yourself in a conflict that isn't your own, that is intertwined with various other factors....bombing them...you don't see how that could have consequences?
oh the horror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 02:48 AM   #322
HarryCallahan
Go ahead...
 
HarryCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,620
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daily


Oh f*ck I'm dying here..

This thread has officially gone off the rails when we start quoting that crackpots work

Fellow at Cambridge, fellow at Harvard= Crackpot. Got it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by niko
Yes, somewhere along the 70 or so years since then people who have spent their whole life against the war might have mentioned the fact they were trying to surrender as they were bombed. No one talks about it because it's a rewriting of history after the fact.

We can go back and forth if the bomb was necessary and you probably have my opinion dead wrong, but going back and rewriting the situation to remove any ambiquity is just wrong and tbh, kind of lazy.

And note: Obama should go to Congress if he is not 100% decided on an action. Congress in theory represents the american people, and the people don't want to attack Syria. I don't get how being prudent makes one week.

Stop being disingenuous. Plenty of people cite this, there have been many books have been written. It is false to state that "somewhere along the 70 or so years since then people who have spent their whole life against the war might have mentioned the fact they were trying to surrender as they were bombed" your ignorance doesn't change the fact that Hirohito was trying to avoid being tried for war crimes and retain the position of emperor, he got both things anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph? It's fairly vague. It was wrong to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there's no ambiguity about it.

Don't pay attention to people who speak like that. They are partisan hacks. If he had an (R) next to his name, he'd be "prudent and all the (D)'s would be calling him either a war criminal or weak.
HarryCallahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 05:20 PM   #323
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryCallahan
Fellow at Cambridge, fellow at Harvard= Crackpot. Got it.




Stop being disingenuous. Plenty of people cite this, there have been many books have been written. It is false to state that "somewhere along the 70 or so years since then people who have spent their whole life against the war might have mentioned the fact they were trying to surrender as they were bombed" your ignorance doesn't change the fact that Hirohito was trying to avoid being tried for war crimes and retain the position of emperor, he got both things anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph? It's fairly vague. It was wrong to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there's no ambiguity about it.

Don't pay attention to people who speak like that. They are partisan hacks. If he had an (R) next to his name, he'd be "prudent and all the (D)'s would be calling him either a war criminal or weak.

The people in charge didn't want to surrender, you're just talking about something's that's utterly false. I'm glad you found someone to support your position, it's still revisionist bullshit.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 07:13 PM   #324
gigantes
Tor Johnson.
 
gigantes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,666
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

trying to keep a little neural space open to evaluate this thing. right now it sure sounds like this is way more than just some batshit crazy rebels pulling cruel stunts. more like huge segments of the general populace who are being treated mercilessly.


9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/



the way this runs (from what i've read so far), it almost doesn't matter to me that assad may have used banned weapons. he's absolutely brutalising the people, either way.

my other concern is still the same, tho-- why should the US have to be one of the only payers for a bombing operation? no, tragic as it is, we must still wait for the UN mandate... no?
gigantes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 07:24 PM   #325
Deleterious
Banned
 
Deleterious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,603
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gigantes
trying to keep a little neural space open to evaluate this thing. right now it sure sounds like this is way more than just some batshit crazy rebels pulling cruel stunts. more like huge segments of the general populace who are being treated mercilessly.


9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/



the way this runs (from what i've read so far), it almost doesn't matter to me that assad may have used banned weapons. he's absolutely brutalising the people, either way.

my other concern is still the same, tho-- why should the US have to be one of the only payers for a bombing operation? no, tragic as it is, we must still wait for the UN mandate... no?

funny article. lots of lies.
Deleterious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 07:26 PM   #326
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

What i don't like about an intervention here is I don't see how it helps.
1) I don't see a clear message from the rebels. I'm not even sure it's remotely clear who leads them.
2) BOTH sides are committing atrocities. Assad used chemical weapons. Rephrehensible. But if we were to remove him, we'd put more than likely just as bad people in charge, but more fragmented. Meaning most likely more war.
3) A measured (limited) response shows what? That we can blow the shit out of Syria? Anyone doubt that?

Millitary action's purpose should be to accomplish an aim and prevent more conflict. This accomplishes nothing and extends the current conflict. if they wanted Assad out, they could have helped a long time ago, not now when he's entrenched again.

I say no go on Syria.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 07:28 PM   #327
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleterious
funny article. lots of lies.
Such as what? It's all very basic, it gives the viewpoint of the US, not says the viewpoint is right. It's not slanted, it's factual, but very basic.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 08:12 PM   #328
gigantes
Tor Johnson.
 
gigantes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,666
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleterious
funny article. lots of lies.
and you sure cleared them up with your helpful message.


Quote:
Originally Posted by niko
What i don't like about an intervention here is I don't see how it helps.
1) I don't see a clear message from the rebels. I'm not even sure it's remotely clear who leads them.
2) BOTH sides are committing atrocities. Assad used chemical weapons. Rephrehensible. But if we were to remove him, we'd put more than likely just as bad people in charge, but more fragmented. Meaning most likely more war.
3) A measured (limited) response shows what? That we can blow the shit out of Syria? Anyone doubt that?

Millitary action's purpose should be to accomplish an aim and prevent more conflict. This accomplishes nothing and extends the current conflict. if they wanted Assad out, they could have helped a long time ago, not now when he's entrenched again.

I say no go on Syria.
1) i don't see that it matters. the rebels most likely are a wild mix of people with all kinds of agendas and all kinds of situations who pretty much no longer want to be stomped on. many are just innocents caught in the crossfire with nothing to do but fight back.


2) the the rebel's atrocities are more likely lesser in volume and only being perpetrated by their fringe. i'm not going to blame them all for what a few jackasses do. assad's side is a coordinated agenda, greater in volume, that pretty much created the situation in the first place AFAIK.

i totally agree with you that who knows what happens if assad goes down? this is our concern, dude.


3) i don't know. maybe you're right.


still, as many ways as a response might go wrong or be inadequate, if the UN votes for it, the UN votes for it. we have responsibility in these kinds of matters, don't we?
gigantes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 08:23 PM   #329
niko
I Run NY.
 
niko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 30,849
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gigantes
and you sure cleared them up with your helpful message.



1) i don't see that it matters. the rebels most likely are a wild mix of people with all kinds of agendas and all kinds of situations who pretty much no longer want to be stomped on. many are just innocents caught in the crossfire with nothing to do but fight back.


2) the the rebel's atrocities are more likely lesser in volume and only being perpetrated by their fringe. i'm not going to blame them all for what a few jackasses do. assad's side is a coordinated agenda, greater in volume, that pretty much created the situation in the first place AFAIK.

i totally agree with you that who knows what happens if assad goes down? this is our concern, dude.


3) i don't know. maybe you're right.


still, as many ways as a response might go wrong or be inadequate, if the UN votes for it, the UN votes for it. we have responsibility in these kinds of matters, don't we?
I'd be more in line with a UN sponsored initative. I don't like the thought of us firing a bunch of cruise missles in to prove a point though.
niko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2013, 11:23 PM   #330
HarryCallahan
Go ahead...
 
HarryCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,620
Default Re: Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niko
The people in charge didn't want to surrender, you're just talking about something's that's utterly false. I'm glad you found someone to support your position, it's still revisionist bullshit.


Quote:
We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that; "On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people."


Quote:
Originally Posted by niko
1) I don't see a clear message from the rebels. I'm not even sure it's remotely clear who leads them.
2) BOTH sides are committing atrocities. Assad used chemical weapons. Rephrehensible. But if we were to remove him, we'd put more than likely just as bad people in charge, but more fragmented. Meaning most likely more war.
3) A measured (limited) response shows what? That we can blow the shit out of Syria? Anyone doubt that?


Pretty big leap to make...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantes
2) the the rebel's atrocities are more likely lesser in volume and only being perpetrated by their fringe. i'm not going to blame them all for what a few jackasses do. assad's side is a coordinated agenda, greater in volume, that pretty much created the situation in the first place AFAIK.

The Rebel are all fringe, most moderates like Assad. The volume is at least equal, the "rebels" have wiped out entire villages and car-bombed schools and playgrounds.
HarryCallahan is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy