4 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Well, common sense suggests that the Earth is flat and stationary. Using common sense as a basis for life isn't very wise, in my own humble opinion. Everything isn't always what it seems to be, and making assumptions based on given circumstances can be detrimental. Just because something appears to make sense doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. 

 

In regards to the topic at hand, I agree that it was a show of force, but it was a necessary show of force. If I recall correctly, a few years ago former President Barrack Obama made a threat against the Syrian Regime. He stated that if the Syrian Regime were to use chemical weapons again, hence crossing his "red line", the United States would respond with military action. Not only did Obama make that dry threat, but Hillary Clinton suggested that the United States bomb Syrian airfields a few days prior to the missile strikes. Hillary Clinton would have bombed the same airfield that President Trump bombed, so I don't know why people act as though this is a Trump exclusive. The President has received commendation from top Democratic officials. I'd like to know where the outcry was when Obama ordered drones to slaughter, reportedly, thousands of people across the middle-east with drone strikes; but forget that, Obama is the alpha-American. The man does no wrong. He's the greatest president this nation has ever had the privilege to have. 

Where was YOUR outcry, dude? Did you ever criticize Obama for being too aggressive with foreign policy? For killing too many civilians? And how about the fact that the Trump administration still hasn't provided proof that Syria did the chemical weapons attack? He bombed before he had proof, or doesn't have proof. Which is worse?

 

And I didn't support Hillary Clinton because she's a war hawk funded by people who profit from war. Why are you looking to Hillary Clinton to justify Trump's judgement? If she had sound judgement, why didn't you vote for her? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Its just chunks of regurgitated right wing talking points.

Edited April 9, 20179 yr by Riley24

Just now, Riley24 said:

Where was YOUR outcry, dude? Did you ever criticize Obama for being too aggressive with foreign policy? For killing too many civilians? And how about the fact that the Trump administration still hasn't provided proof that Syria did the chemical weapons attack? He bombed before he had proof, or doesn't have proof. Which is worse?

 

Well, going by your definition of common sense, it's common sense that the Syrian Regime conducted the chemical attack. According to brief research, the Syrian Regime possesses the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria. Not only that, but the Syrian Regime has conducted a chemical attack prior, according to Obama.

 

I'd say that bombing an airfield with no casualties definitely can't be any worse than slaughtering thousands with drones.

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Well, going by your definition of common sense, it's common sense that the Syrian Regime conducted the chemical attack. According to brief research, the Syrian Regime possesses the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria. Not only that, but the Syrian Regime has conducted a chemical attack prior, according to Obama.

 

I'd say that bombing an airfield with no casualties definitely can't be any worse than slaughtering thousands with drones.

Hold on, I thought you said we shouldn't use common sense? There weren't no casualties. 6 people died. Are you anti-drone, now? So you'll criticize Trump when we find out he kills more civilians than Obama ever did, right?

 

Also, if you haven't noticed, there are two wings of the Democratic party. The establishment wing and the progressive wing. Progressives such as myself have been criticizing Obama and Clinton for YEARS for their foreign policy. Stop comparing Trump to people I ALSO profoundly disagree with.

Edited April 9, 20179 yr by Riley24

6 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Hold on, I thought you said we shouldn't use common sense? There weren't no casualties. 6 people died. Are you anti-drone, now? So you'll criticize Trump when we find out he kills more civilians than Obama ever did, right?

 

 

Well, I figured that you disagreed with my post on common sense since you didn't address it. So, I decided to use the same logic that you did, which you say is common sense, and apply it to the chemical attack in Syria. But somehow that isn't common sense at all, which is why I think that implying that something is common sense is ridiculous. 

 

According to the Assad Regime and SOHR, there were casualties with the missile strikes. I can't think of a more reliable source, Assad claiming that there were civilian casualties in the strikes against him. SOHR claiming that the only casualties were the deaths of eight soldiers. Doesn't seem like much of an unfortunate casualty to me. When Trump orders the slaughter of people across an entire region, then I'll criticize him on it.

Edited April 9, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

34 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

You can't hold President Trump accountable for what wasn't done while he wasn't in office, that's on Obama's shoulders. I'd like to know where the outcry was when Obama ordered drones to slaughter, reportedly, thousands of people across the middle-east with drone strikes; but forget that, Obama is the alpha-American. The man does no wrong.

For me personally, I consider it's a stupid move, be it Obama, Trump or whoever else does it. You don't solve situations by bombing in the 21st century, it doesn't work like that anymore. You solve problems by discussing, using diplomacy. Not by dropping your pants to show that you've bigger balls than your neighbor. Especially when you have no proof whatsoever of who did what (the UN experts certified the Syrian regime had destroyed all its chemical weapons a couple years ago).

 

The way I see it, it's yet again another case of the US thinking they are some kind of world's police and acting without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. For so long I've seen americans saying that the US government should stop taking care of things that don't concern them. And yet now that the US yet again get involved into an area thousands of miles away, people applaud. It doesn't make sense. The inconsistency is just crazy. Either you want to get involved into foreign conflicts, and in this case you don't pick your fights and just take the things at hand as a whole, or you decide to mind your own business, in which case you don't change your mind half-way through.

 

As for this :

 

40 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

He's the greatest president this nation has ever had the privilege to have. 

 

C'mon, quit the fanboying, it's too obvious there. Dude has been in the office for what 3 months? Too early to call anyone 'greatest president this nation has ever had'. Especially considering the iconic presidents you had in the past (like Trump would be greater than, say, Lincoln. Makes me scream LOL internally).

Quote

C'mon, quit the fanboying, it's too obvious there. Dude has been in the office for what 3 months? Too early to call anyone 'greatest president this nation has ever had'. Especially considering the iconic presidents you had in the past (like Trump would be greater than, say, Lincoln. Makes me scream LOL internally).

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about Barrack Obama. How when he does something notably wrong it isn't a big deal; because people make mistakes, right? But when Trump does something wrong, time to break out the impeachment hammer and put boot to ass! I am not a Trump supporter, but I'm not going to stand with something that doesn't add up or make sense.

 

21 minutes ago, Hystery said:

For me personally, I consider it's a stupid move, be it Obama, Trump or whoever else does it. You don't solve situations by bombing in the 21st century, it doesn't work like that anymore. You solve problems by discussing, using diplomacy. Not by dropping your pants to show that you've bigger balls than your neighbor. Especially when you have no proof whatsoever of who did what (the UN experts certified the Syrian regime had destroyed all its chemical weapons a couple years ago).

 

 

Diplomacy is a thing of the past. We tried diplomacy with the Japanese in World War II, we tried diplomacy with the Taliban in Afghanistan, we tried diplomacy in Syria; none of that worked. It's obvious that diplomatic talks have never worked throughout history, otherwise, our planet wouldn't be so plagued with a rich history of war. Going by Riley24's definition of common sense, it's relatively obvious that it was the Syrian Regime that used the chemical weapons. Not only did the Syrian Regime (and I guarantee you still do) possess the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria, but on Friday U.S. and UN officials stated that it's entirely possible that the Syrian Regime may have retained its chemical weapons and may still have the ability to manufacture chemical weapons. Even if the United States had discussed it with the UN, nothing would have been done. The UN has a rich reputation of sitting by making dry threats while an atrocity occurs somewhere in the world.

Quote

The way I see it, it's yet again another case of the US thinking they are some kind of world's police and acting without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. For so long I've seen americans saying that the US government should stop taking care of things that don't concern them. And yet now that the US yet again get involved into an area thousands of miles away, people applaud. It doesn't make sense. The inconsistency is just crazy. Either you want to get involved into foreign conflicts, and in this case you don't pick your fights and just take the things at hand as a whole, or you decide to mind your own business, in which case you don't change your mind half-way through.

 

 

 

 

According to polling, a majority of Americans don't even want to get involved with Syria. There's also an apparent tremendous wealth of support from foreign governments with the missile strikes based on some brief research.

 

 

Edited April 10, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

2 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Diplomacy is a thing of the past. We tried diplomacy with the Japanese in World War II, we tried diplomacy with the Taliban in Afghanistan, we tried diplomacy in Syria; none of that worked. It's obvious that diplomatic talks have never worked throughout history, otherwise, our planet wouldn't be so plagued with a rich history of war. Going by Riley24's definition of common sense, it's relatively obvious that it was the Syrian Regime that used the chemical weapons. Not only did the Syrian Regime (and I guarantee you still do) possess the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria, but on Friday U.S. and UN officials stated that it's entirely possible that the Syrian Regime may have retained its chemical weapons and may still have the ability to manufacture chemical weapons. Even if the United States had discussed it with the UN, nothing would have been done. The UN has a rich reputation of sitting by making dry threats while an atrocity occurs somewhere in the world.

 

I doubt 2 nukes for Japan is the definition of diplomacy. Nor is requisitioning NATO to send troops into a foreigner country like Afghanistan. And diplomacy worked perfectly well in Syria with that little coalition we had going on between the US, the EU and Russia to take care of ISIS in this region until the US decided to drop some missiles to show they can bark loud. Diplomacy isn't a thing of the past, simply because it rarely has been used in the past. However, warmongering -IS- something from the past, and has proven to be only destructive for everyone over centuries.

 

Look at a good display of diplomacy: Europe going from a theater of perpetual war in the 20th century and prior, to a completely peaceful continent now, safe from the Ukraine situation a while ago (and still, no one bombed anything). Achieved only through diplomacy and discussion through states.

 

What I'm looking at when I see this Syrian thing and the US getting actively involved against its regime is a complete repetition of what happened in Irak in 2003. "Omg look we have serious suspicious the Iraqi regime has weapons of mass destruction. Let's get involved." -> "Omg look the Syrian regime has chemical weapons that killed civilians (even though technically they killed many more Syrian civilians in the past few years with regular weapons and so did we with our drone strikes but hey I'm not looking at such details). Let's get involved." Just no. Especially when Syria's strongest ally is Russia. I don't know if you study the Cold War in history class in the US, I know I did, and I don't want to go through that again just because mister Trump or mister Obama or any other idiot with hands on the most powerful army in the world wants to show they've the balls to do whatever they want no matter the opinion of the rest of the world.

Just now, Hystery said:

 

 

What I'm looking at when I see this Syrian thing and the US getting actively involved against its regime is a complete repetition of what happened in Irak in 2003. "Omg look we have serious suspicious the Iraqi regime has weapons of mass destruction. Let's get involved." -> "Omg look the Syrian regime has chemical weapons that killed civilians (even though technically they killed many more Syrian civilians in the past few years with regular weapons and so did we with our drone strikes but hey I'm not looking at such details). Let's get involved." Just no. Especially when Syria's strongest ally is Russia. I don't know if you study the Cold War in history class in the US, I know I did, and I don't want to go through that again just because mister Trump or mister Obama or any other idiot with hands on the most powerful army in the world wants to show they've the balls to do whatever they want no matter the opinion of the rest of the world.

2

According to polls, a majority of Americans say that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Even President Trump was evidently against the war in Iraq, he said it during his campaign. The difference between Iraq and Syria is that we actually found chemical weapons in Syria, and they were used against civilian targets. Russia isn't relevant on the matter, they aren't going to do anything drastic enough to create a direct conflict with the United States; and the same with the United States.

Quote

I doubt 2 nukes for Japan is the definition of diplomacy. Nor is requisitioning NATO to send troops into a foreigner country like Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Japan hadn't lost any significant conflicts prior to WW II, surrender wasn't even a consideration of the Japanese Empire at the time. If my research is accurate Japanese culture is filled with the concept of honor, not surrendering in a fight. They refused to surrender so the United States forced them to surrender as a result. That's on them, and it's their fault.

Quote

Look at a good display of diplomacy: Europe going from a theater of perpetual war in the 20th century and prior, to a completely peaceful continent now, safe from the Ukraine situation a while ago (and still, no one bombed anything). Achieved only through diplomacy and discussion through states.

 

 

 

That's not diplomacy, friend... that's war. The exact opposite of diplomacy. Europe fought with itself for centuries until it finally came to (almost) complete peace. That's not good diplomacy.

Quote

And diplomacy worked perfectly well in Syria with that little coalition we had going on between the US, the EU and Russia to take care of ISIS in this region until the US decided to drop some missiles to show they can bark loud. Diplomacy isn't a thing of the past, simply because it rarely has been used in the past. However, warmongering -IS- something from the past, and has proven to be only destructive for everyone over centuries.

1

 

To my understanding, the US and Russia initially began having issues when Russia continuously dropped bombs on civilian targets in Syria and didn't abide by the cease-fire agreement. This prompted the US to immediately sever any sort of cooperation it had with Russia because Russia wasn't holding to its side of the deal. I can't recall anything other than the Cold War where diplomacy had a significant impact on society, without the use of war and physical intervention; and even then, that's really stretching the definition of the word 'diplomacy'.

6 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Japan hadn't lost any significant conflicts prior to WW II, surrender wasn't even a consideration of the Japanese Empire at the time. If my research is accurate Japanese culture is filled with the concept of honor, not surrendering in a fight. They refused to surrender so the United States forced them to surrender as a result. That's on them, and it's their fault.

You can't really say it's their fault to the thousands of civilians the two nukes killed. It was civilian targets, just like the Syrian regime supposedly did actually. Also, it's besides the point. Back at the time, it was a world war, there was no diplomacy involved whatsoever, hence my point of no diplomacy being used back at the time, only warmongering, again.

 

6 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That's not diplomacy, friend... that's war. The exact opposite of diplomacy. Europe fought with itself for centuries until it finally came to (almost) complete peace. That's not good diplomacy.

But... It -is- diplomacy. Yes, Europe fought for centuries. Until they learned the lesson, got their shit together, and prefered to TALK to each other rather than to BOMB each other. Diplomacy. Solving problems through discusion rather than conflict. It's the prime example of diplomacy actually, of what diplomacy can achieve, turning a continent torn apart by centuries of wars into a cooperating union. Going from bloodthirsty to friendly.

Edited April 10, 20179 yr by Hystery

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

But... It -is- diplomacy. Yes, Europe fought for centuries. Until they learned the lesson, got their shit together, and prefered to TALK to each other rather than to BOMB each other. Diplomacy. Solving problems through discusion rather than conflict. It's the prime example of diplomacy actually, of what diplomacy can achieve, turning a continent torn apart by centuries of wars into a cooperating continent. Going from bloodthirsty to friendly.

2

Europe fought for centuries, therefore it isn't diplomacy man, lol. Diplomacy is talking, not fighting. Europe fought for centuries. That isn't diplomacy, that's war. Once Europe realized that war wasn't solving anything, they decided to talk. 

Quote

You can't really say it's their fault to the thousands of civilians the two nukes killed. It was civilian targets, just like the Syrian regime supposedly did actually. Also, it's besides the point. Back at the time, it was a world war, there was no diplomacy involved whatsoever, hence my point of no diplomacy being used back at the time, only warmongering, again.

 

 

 

I have no way of knowing whether or not the Japanese people themselves wanted to surrender, so I can't really argue that it's their fault for being killed. Either way, they had it coming to them. An invasion of mainland Japan is estimated to have cost millions of American lives, and millions of Japanese lives. With the drop of the atomic bombs, less than half a million Japanese were killed. The bombs saved Americans lives and Japanese lives. 

 

So I'm basically just gonna tap Hystery in and be on my way

7 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Europe fought for centuries, therefore it isn't diplomacy man, lol. Diplomacy is talking, not fighting. Europe fought for centuries. That isn't diplomacy, that's war. Once Europe realized that war wasn't solving anything, they decided to talk.

You prove my point yourself there. Yes they fought. Then, they talked. Diplomacy turned a continent from a bloody mess of warmongering into a pacified union. Diplomacy.

 

7 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I have no way of knowing whether or not the Japanese people themselves wanted to surrender, so I can't really argue that it's their fault for being killed. Either way, they had it coming to them. An invasion of mainland Japan is estimated to have cost millions of American lives, and millions of Japanese lives. With the drop of the atomic bombs, less than half a million Japanese were killed. The bombs saved Americans lives and Japanese lives. 

The bombing of military objectives was a possibility, yet the US decided to bomb civilian cities, that's why you can't really say that the civilians 'had it coming'. It's as if right now North Korea dropped a nuke on Los Angeles and I said 'muricans had it coming'. It's both disrespectful to the people who died and disrespectful to the people as a whole, they shouldn't be judged for the decisions of their government.

Riley, your the one who is filled with propaganda.

 

You said 70 were killed because of the air strikes on Syria. 

 

6 were killed, and they were on the air Base. They were not civilians trust me.

 

Many democrats agreed that they deserved to be bombed. Regardless of who is president, it was well deserved.

10 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So I'm basically just gonna tap Hystery in and be on my way

Friend, generally (in regards to WWE) a tap during a tag-team match suggests that the current wrestler has taken a beating and needs a moment to rest. Therefore they tag in their partner and allow their partner a chance to fight while they recover. Is that the case here?

4 hours ago, Hystery said:

You prove my point yourself there. Yes they fought. Then, they talked. Diplomacy turned a continent from a bloody mess of warmongering into a pacified union. Diplomacy.

 

The bombing of military objectives was a possibility, yet the US decided to bomb civilian cities, that's why you can't really say that the civilians 'had it coming'. It's as if right now North Korea dropped a nuke on Los Angeles and I said 'muricans had it coming'. It's both disrespectful to the people who died and disrespectful to the people as a whole, they shouldn't be judged for the decisions of their government.

My point is that they fought BEFORE they used diplomatic solutions. Europeans fought and fought and fought until it just didn't make any damn sense to fight anymore, then Europeans decided to talk. My point is that diplomacy wasn't initially used because diplomacy didn't work. Times are dangerous, diplomacy is a requirement now. 

 

We did decide to bomb Japanese cities, because dropping an atomic bomb on a military installation, to me, wouldn't have made much sense. We, we being the Allies, needed to strike the Japanese Homeland in order to prompt a surrender. If the Japanese had surrendered when they were afforded the opportunity to, we wouldn't have dropped the bombs. And like I said, the bombs saved millions of lives all around. I don't know whether I can blame the Japanese or not because I don't know if the Japanese people were in support of their governments decision to fight, rather than surrender. 

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

My point is that they fought BEFORE they used diplomatic solutions. Europeans fought and fought and fought until it just didn't make any damn sense to fight anymore, then Europeans decided to talk. My point is that diplomacy wasn't initially used because diplomacy didn't work. Times are dangerous, diplomacy is a requirement now. 

Exactly, they fought before, and then used diplomatic solutions, because it was the best for everyone. Tell me what did the US do in the past? They fought. And they keep fighting. And judging how things are turning now, they'll keep fighting. No diplomatic outcome in sight anytime soon. That's one of the main issues I have. What harm would it have done to actually try to talk to countries members of the UN and NATO BEFORE launching a bunch of missiles? To try and defuse the thing before it explodes? And I'm not talking about a 'Hey, we gonna bomb shit yo' kind of talk. I'm talking about a 'Alright, let's sort out who's responsible for all this and then we'll take action according to that' kind of talk. That's the thing. It's a case of "Shoot first, ask questions later", and it never solved any problem. And it never will. Unless you plan to exterminate half the population of the world until everyone bends to the US will.

Edited April 10, 20179 yr by Hystery

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

Exactly, they fought before, and then used diplomatic solutions, because it was the best for everyone. Tell me what did the US do in the past? They fought. And they keep fighting. And judging how things are turning now, they'll keep fighting. No diplomatic outcome in sight anytime soon. That's one of the main issues I have. What harm would it have done to actually try to talk to countries members of the UN and NATO BEFORE launching a bunch of missiles? To try and defuse the thing before it explodes? And I'm not talking about a 'Hey, we gonna bomb shit yo' kind of talk. I'm talking about a 'Alright, let's sort out who's responsible for all this and then we'll take action according to that' kind of talk. That's the thing. It's a case of "Shoot first, ask questions later", and it never solved any problem. And it never will. Unless you plan to exterminate half the population of the world until everyone bends to the US will.

 

Well, apparently it wasn't all that bad of a decision since foreign powers seem to be supportive of the missile strikes.

3 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Friend, generally (in regards to WWE) a tap during a tag-team match suggests that the current wrestler has taken a beating and needs a moment to rest. Therefore they tag in their partner and allow their partner a chance to fight while they recover. Is that the case here?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humor?s=t

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/busy?s=t

6 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humor?s=t

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/busy?s=t

lmao 😂

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Well, apparently it wasn't all that bad of a decision since foreign powers seem to be supportive of the missile strikes.

Just because a bunch of people support something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, though. To determine if it was, you've to take a bunch of factors in the equation:

 

-> Was it needed for the international community to react to this chemical strike? Yeah, of course. It's an atrocious thing to do to anyone (putting aside the hypocrisy of the coalition that itself killed a bunch of people as well).

 

-> Was it needed for the US to immediately go for a military action when no one knew exactly who did that and why? Definitely not, there was other means to take things in hands.

 

Just because it's a regime the US happen to dislike doesn't mean they should skip steps and immediately go all militaristic over them. Just like everything else, an investigation has to be conducted to determine who is to blame for this, and once it is determined, then we can take sanctions.

Edited April 10, 20179 yr by Hystery

Honestly, this was just a way to attempt to bolster Trump's position in the international theatre. There is pretty much zero evidence that either the Russians or Syrians did the attack. I was extremely mad that this was a shift away from the policy of not participating in regime change wars, but this is pretty much just an expensive fireworks show anyways to make it seem that Trump is decisive. So even then it isn't a difference in policy.

 

You know what, if anyone's interested here's a video that can explain the situation better than pretty much all of us.