DivineHustle

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

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? 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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'.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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

That can go both ways too.

The comical thing about it is that Obama was the one that initially made the threat with his "red line" per se. He himself made a statement that if Syria used chemical weapons again, the United States would take action. Syria decided to use chemical weapons again, so we've simply carried out the threat that Barrack Obama made.

The reason that the United States generally takes action first is because no other country will. The United States, alongside a few other countries, is a world power and arguably the strongest nation in the world in terms of military strength. I don't entirely agree with our involvement in foreign conflicts, but there's an apparent reason behind it. As previously stated, no other country takes the initiative. There's a horror that occurs somewhere in the world and everyone turns a blind eye, and points to the United States. If the world does not want the United States to take the initiative, then it should stop pointing the finger at it. According to brief research, the Syrian regime possesses the largest arsenal of chemical weapon in Syria and the Syrian regime has been accused of using such weapons in the past by the United Nations: "In August 2016, a confidential report by the United Nations and the OPCW explicitly blamed the Syrian military of Bashar al-Assad for dropping chemical weapons (chlorine bombs) on the towns of Talmenes in April 2014 and Sarmin in March 2015 and ISIS for using sulfur mustard on the town of Marea in August 2015.[1]" I personally cannot determine whether it actually was the Syrian regime that conducted the chemical attacks but based on chemical attacks in the past, it's definitely a strong possibility. The missile strikes are said to have been targeted at the source of the chemical weapons airbase. Regardless of who conducted the chemical attack, if the chemical weapons were acquired from this airbase, then the strike on this airbase was necessary. The United States is the leader of Syria's intervention effort, I'm unsure of whether or not that's a self-acclaimed title. The rest of the world would have responded the same way it has responded since we initially got involved with Syria, not at all. No initiative, the United States has to take the initiative. It's not like the missile strike did any harm, it was in response to a horrible chemical attack on civilians. Of course, everyone wants peace, but when you're dealing with these type of people peace is out the window. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack

In my opinion, I think that the U.S. attack was necessary and more action needs to be taken. This was an obvious attack aimed directly at civilians by the Assad Regime, and we need to continue to hammer Assad regardless of this apparent Russia–Assad alliance. It's obvious that the Russians weren't going to do anything to contain their apparent ally, so the U.S. and its allies need to stay on top of it. The Russians better get used to it.

lmao I especially enjoyed the bit where you nudged that other vehicle and caused it to wreck out at 2:39.

Something that continues to baffle me is the sheer lack of logic and common sense within the game. Of course I do recognize the fact that it's a video game, but still... it's pretty funny to me. Funny little scenario I went through a while ago.

I only saw the 7th one and I fell asleep 10 minutes in. =P

I usually head to the main precinct downtown and go on duty as a regular patrol officer. Most of the time I'll grab a partner using the Herocop mod because I really enjoy having one. A lot of times I'll just pull out of the station and patrol the ghetto area. It can get fun patrolling that area, especially at night. I always ensure that I have a partner when I patrol the ghetto, especially at night.

I sincerely hoped that this was some sort of major April fools' joke—that maybe within the first few days of April, they'd come out and tell everyone about how they were playing a prank, and that they acknowledge how ridiculous the report would have been. It's been a few days already.... they may actually be serious with this. LMAO

I don't know, friend. In my opinion, I'd say that it really depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation.

I like every vehicle except for the last one.

Images don't work friend, which was very anti-climatic.

The debate is pointless because guns will always be a part of America.

The gentlemen is too hood for his own good.

Not only would it be ineffective, but it would also be illegal. According to some brief research, most Americans are in favor of background checks and relatively stricter gun laws, but a majority are also against a complete ban.