• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Countdown to Midnight: Global Conflagration Imminent

You are referring to the same individual that during the campaign made fun of handicapped people, trashed veterans, incited crowds to violence, discussed his desire to use nuclear weapons, said he could shoot someone and not lose any votes, etc. Besides those facts, the man has demonstrated he is bereft of any morality by cheating on (at least) three wives, and boasting about it. If such a person cannot comply with a vow to be true to one person, then how can that person be trusted to protect a nation of 320 million citizens? And why would they truly care to do so?

Go ahead; convince yourself you are speaking of a different person, a person with a modicum of morality, with a better, slightly more generous attitude towards humanity. Keep lying to yourself ........

This DJT...

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/125966/read-donald-trumps-stirring-soliloquy-senselessness-war

None of what you say makes him a warmonger.
 
I would like someone to explain to me, in a systematic and convincing way, how the US attacking the Assad Regime is going to do anything but prolong the Syrian Civil War, deepen the misery of the Syrian people, and risk widening the destabilisation and conflict to the wider Middle East and neighbouring areas like, Iran, Lebanon and already ravaged Iraq. Being angry at Bashar al Assad for using chemical weapons in the past and allegedly using them on April 7th, 2018 is not a licence to bomb a country with which you are not at war. Since 1948 IIRC the foremost war crime which any state's leadership can commit is the voluntary waging of war. Bombing Syria is not necessary as Syria is not an existential threat to America (it is an annoying nussance and a barbarous example of man's inhumanity to man but it is not a seriuos threat to America) and therefore doing so would open up the US leadership and military brass to legal jeopardy under international laws which the US Government has signed on to.

Bashar al Assad's regime is monstrous and viciously wicked. But compounding the destuction which that regime has caused within its own borders by doing more destruction, which will achieve nothing in the end, is frankly irrational. Military force is a tool which can only solve some problems and this is a problem which military force cannot solve, unless the US is willing to commit hundreds of thousands of American boots on the ground for years ahead to occupy Syria in order to effect both regime change and the pacification of all armed groups, including both government and rebel forces. There is no political appetite in the American body-politic for such a massive military committment, so using limited military force is a non-starter which will only make things worse and risks widening armed conflict and further destabilisation to neighbouring areas.

War doesn't solve international or intra-national problems. War just determines who gets to solve such problems, and America does not want to solve Syria's problems. Nor do most Americans want to underwrite the risk and expense of tangling with Iran or Russia in a bid to have that burden of solution foisted upon them. Think, people, before you act and learn from the follies of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, rather than repeating the same destructive mistakes over and over again while somehow expecting to get different results each time. War is almost always a racket and is seldom a viable solution!

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
I would like someone to explain to me, in a systematic and convincing way, how the US attacking the Assad Regime is going to do anything but prolong the Syrian Civil War, deepen the misery of the Syrian people, and risk widening the destabilisation and conflict to the wider Middle East and neighbouring areas like, Iran, Lebanon and already ravaged Iraq. Being angry at Bashar al Assad for using chemical weapons in the past and allegedly using them on April 7th, 2018 is not a licence to bomb a country with which you are not at war. Since 1948 IIRC the foremost war crime which any state's leadership can commit is the voluntary waging of war. Bombing Syria is not necessary as Syria is not an existential threat to America (it is an annoying nussance and a barbarous example of man's inhumanity to man but it is not a seriuos threat to America) and therefore doing so would open up the US leadership and military brass to legal jeopardy under international laws which the US Government has signed on to.

Bashar al Assad's regime is monstrous and viciously wicked. But compounding the destuction which that regime has caused within its own borders by doing more destruction, which will achieve nothing in the end, is frankly irrational. Military force is a tool which can only solve some problems and this is a problem which military force cannot solve, unless the US is willing to commit hundreds of thousands of American boots on the ground for years ahead to occupy Syria in order to effect both regime change and the pacification of all armed groups, including both government and rebel forces. There is no political appetite in the American body-politic for such a massive military committment, so using limited military force is a non-starter which will only make things worse and risks widening armed conflict and further destabilisation to neighbouring areas.

War doesn't solve international or intra-national problems. War just determines who gets to solve such problems, and America does not want to solve Syria's problems. Nor do most Americans want to underwrite the risk and expense of tangling with Iran or Russia in a bid to have that burden of solution foisted upon them. Think, people, before you act and learn from the follies of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, rather than repeating the same destructive mistakes over and over again while somehow expecting to get different results each time. War is almost always a racket and is seldom a viable solution!

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

Attacking syria will simply prolong suffering, and lead to mass genocide that makes the current civil war look like peacetime. American people though do not seem to be buying it, we had a bunch of wars all started on lies and now the people who have constantly lied to use and have never told the truth are expecting the population to buy the story, it would have worked if it had been a decade or so waiting, but after being in almost nonstop conflict since the cold war ended, it is the boy who cried wolf scenario.


serbia was invaded on a lie, the first gulf war had us intervention based on a lie( throwing babies out of hospital windows, and the witness not only after admitted she lied but was also kuwaiti royalty) We have iraq 2 based off falsified intelligence, we have libya based off a lie as well. It is simply lie after lie and a fibber begging people to believe him. Americans and many in the west are fed up with it, even though the govt supports war the people do not, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out every war started on the basis of atrocity propoganda ended up being a lie going back to ww1.
 
I have been monitoring what has been going on today, the eurocontrol diverted all flights through syria away for an expected strike, britain france and america have promised retribution, russia has threatened to retaliate if they strike, and oddly begged them not to go down this path which could lead to nuclear war.

Us warships are racing to the mediterrainian, however russian warships are there and have been for a month in anticipation of this move, russians can not project power too far outside their ports but are quite effective at sinking ships, british jets are ready in cypress, despite the s-400 system in place in syria and russian air defense having been proven in israels attack, with 8 missiles launched and 5 taken out, and keep in mind many missiles and bombs have a smaller radar picture than stealth jets. It is essentially world leaders playing chicken with russia being the only major player trying to avoid it but falling on deaf ears.
 
Attacking syria will simply prolong suffering, and lead to mass genocide that makes the current civil war look like peacetime. American people though do not seem to be buying it, we had a bunch of wars all started on lies and now the people who have constantly lied to use and have never told the truth are expecting the population to buy the story, it would have worked if it had been a decade or so waiting, but after being in almost nonstop conflict since the cold war ended, it is the boy who cried wolf scenario.


serbia was invaded on a lie, the first gulf war had us intervention based on a lie( throwing babies out of hospital windows, and the witness not only after admitted she lied but was also kuwaiti royalty) We have iraq 2 based off falsified intelligence, we have libya based off a lie as well. It is simply lie after lie and a fibber begging people to believe him. Americans and many in the west are fed up with it, even though the govt supports war the people do not, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out every war started on the basis of atrocity propoganda ended up being a lie going back to ww1.

Oh really? Srenbrencia was a lie? The Serbs weren’t ethnically cleansing anyone? Saddam didn’t brutally invade Kuwait? Iraqi troops didn’t rape their way through Kuwait City? Iraq didn’t have chemical weapons? (Despite using said weapons on the Kurds and the Iraqi Air Force admitting they’d moved the weapons into Syria)? Gaddafi didn’t sponsor dozens of terrorist groups for decades including ordering multiple attacks in the West?

What a titanicly large load of cap.

The argument that Assad was “set up” is downright idiotic. Had either ISIS or AQ, who, according to Assad backers, compose the entire non Kurdish resistance to him, acquired chemical weapons, they would not have used them in Syria. They would have deployed such weapons on the streets of a major European city like, say, Paris or Berlin.

Some Americans and westerners may be fed up with their darling tyrants being tossed from power and meeting a bad end, but funnily enough, most people are smart enough to realize that the screams of “lies all lies” from the perpetrators are crap. Hell, look at the Japanese nowadays, trying to cash in with the “we did nothing wrong in Nanking” crap.
 
QUOTE = "The Virginian-Pilot |10 Apr 2018 |By Brock Vergakis


NORFOLK -- About 6,500 sailors assigned to the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group will depart Norfolk on Wednesday for a regularly scheduled deployment to Europe and the Middle East, according to the Navy.


https://www.military.com/daily-news...uman-carrier-strike-group-deploy-norfolk.html



----------------------------------- ::: http://www.public.navy.mil/AIRFOR/cvn75/Pages/STRIKE GROUP.aspx




------------------------------------- ::: https://www.facebook.com/USSTruman/





Major Lambda
 
View attachment 67231464

US Naval presence increasing in area, British air force mobilized at Cyprus airbase, France ready to back attack.

View attachment 67231465

All the while Russia says it will respond in defense of Syria and its troops which are there.
This is absolute madness.

There will be a "Huge" price to pay for electing Trump. There is very little doubt in my mind about that.
 
Your load of crap is just that....a load of crap.

There is no evidence whatsoever of "war criminals" running things, nor would punishing the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons count as a "war crime".

anyone that voted for the use of force in Iraq for GW's March, 2003 Bush II Iraq War is war criminal. Anyone that had any part in it is a war criminal. America is a war criminal terrorist state. Do I have to ****ing spell it out for U?
 
I would like someone to explain to me, in a systematic and convincing way, how the US attacking the Assad Regime is going to do anything but prolong the Syrian Civil War, deepen the misery of the Syrian people, and risk widening the destabilisation and conflict to the wider Middle East and neighbouring areas like, Iran, Lebanon and already ravaged Iraq. Being angry at Bashar al Assad for using chemical weapons in the past and allegedly using them on April 7th, 2018 is not a licence to bomb a country with which you are not at war. Since 1948 IIRC the foremost war crime which any state's leadership can commit is the voluntary waging of war. Bombing Syria is not necessary as Syria is not an existential threat to America (it is an annoying nussance and a barbarous example of man's inhumanity to man but it is not a seriuos threat to America) and therefore doing so would open up the US leadership and military brass to legal jeopardy under international laws which the US Government has signed on to.

Bashar al Assad's regime is monstrous and viciously wicked. But compounding the destuction which that regime has caused within its own borders by doing more destruction, which will achieve nothing in the end, is frankly irrational. Military force is a tool which can only solve some problems and this is a problem which military force cannot solve, unless the US is willing to commit hundreds of thousands of American boots on the ground for years ahead to occupy Syria in order to effect both regime change and the pacification of all armed groups, including both government and rebel forces. There is no political appetite in the American body-politic for such a massive military committment, so using limited military force is a non-starter which will only make things worse and risks widening armed conflict and further destabilisation to neighbouring areas.

War doesn't solve international or intra-national problems. War just determines who gets to solve such problems, and America does not want to solve Syria's problems. Nor do most Americans want to underwrite the risk and expense of tangling with Iran or Russia in a bid to have that burden of solution foisted upon them. Think, people, before you act and learn from the follies of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, rather than repeating the same destructive mistakes over and over again while somehow expecting to get different results each time. War is almost always a racket and is seldom a viable solution!

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

Americans are too arrogant, too selfish, and too stupid to give a flying ****
 
IMO, Trump doesn't want to do anything but, is being compelled to do so. God help us all if things get out of control over there.

That's where I'm at too. Just as he was instructed to "do not congratulate", he is being instructed in other ways we can only imagine. In the last year he has made other references to "I had no choice" regarding signing things.
 
anyone that voted for the use of force in Iraq for GW's March, 2003 Bush II Iraq War is war criminal. Anyone that had any part in it is a war criminal. America is a war criminal terrorist state. Do I have to ****ing spell it out for U?

No, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a man who attempted to wipe out Iraq’s Kurdish population via chemical weapons(weapons of mass destruction) is a not a “war crime”.

No, America is not even close to a a “war crime terrorist state”.

You being upset that your beloved dictator was toppled from power does not make anything a “war crime”.

As I thought, you are just another Saddam fanboy shrieking “war crimes” without a single shred of proof.
 
just what we need. another war. ugh would hate to see my boy shipped out to some place i never heard of


And, I would hate to see my nephew sent to fight another war that only benefits Israel.

So, please consider contacting your AIPAC owned & operated Congressscoundrel & tell HIM (OR HER) your views.

Remember the last time young Americans were sent to die far far away:

“QUIETLY LOBBYING CONGRESS TO APPROVE THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ WAS ONE OF AIPAC’S SUCCESSES OVER THE PAST YEAR.”
AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr; N.Y. Sun, Jan. 2003
 
And, I would hate to see my nephew sent to fight another war that only benefits Israel.

So, please consider contacting your AIPAC owned & operated Congressscoundrel & tell HIM (OR HER) your views.

Remember the last time young Americans were sent to die far far away:

“QUIETLY LOBBYING CONGRESS TO APPROVE THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ WAS ONE OF AIPAC’S SUCCESSES OVER THE PAST YEAR.”
AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr; N.Y. Sun, Jan. 2003

well wherever my boy goes, he'll do a good job. sure would hate to see him leave though
 
No, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a man who attempted to wipe out Iraq’s Kurdish population via chemical weapons(weapons of mass destruction) is a not a “war crime”.

No, America is not even close to a a “war crime terrorist state”.

You being upset that your beloved dictator was toppled from power does not make anything a “war crime”.

As I thought, you are just another Saddam fanboy shrieking “war crimes” without a single shred of proof.


The US had great responsibility for propping up Saddam, which by the way, I am no fan of Saddam

The US has a track record of supporting brutal regimes & dictators, Saddam included

GW Bush made a choice to attack & to destroy Iraq with his March, 2003 war against Iraq

By displacing Saddam Bush created very negative consequences for the entire ME region; the ME became completely destabilized because of Bush's 2003 war

Bush & all of his war mongering asshole buddies are war criminals & terrorists

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...0.18.2656...0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.jT2ClR8A5B8
 
well wherever my boy goes, he'll do a good job. sure would hate to see him leave though


Do you hate to see him leave enough to write & call Congressmen & express your opposition?
 
The US had great responsibility for propping up Saddam, which by the way, I am no fan of Saddam

The US has a track record of supporting brutal regimes & dictators, Saddam included

GW Bush made a choice to attack & to destroy Iraq with his March, 2003 war against Iraq

By displacing Saddam Bush created very negative consequences for the entire ME region; the ME became completely destabilized because of Bush's 2003 war

Bush & all of his war mongering asshole buddies are war criminals & terrorists

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...0.18.2656...0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.jT2ClR8A5B8

No, actually. In reality, Saddam got his equipment from France and the USSR. All the US did was supply him with intel when he was at war with an enemy of the United States. We promptly threw him out of Kuwait when he invaded, then we tossed him out of power years later. "Propped him up" my ass.

I hate to break it to you but Saddam was actively radicalizing his populace. His former secret police play key roles in the ISIS command structure. The argument that "oh, if even Saddam had been left alone to gas his own people, there wouldn't be terrorism" is a joke.

As usual, the claims you make are full of ****.....but by all means, go on mourning Saddam. Just keep in mind that, as usual, nothing about his overthrow was either a "war crime" or "terrorism".
 
Do you hate to see him leave enough to write & call Congressmen & express your opposition?

yea guess i never thought of that. hopefully this aint another world war brewing
 
yea guess i never thought of that. hopefully this aint another world war brewing

While it may seem futile, I hope you'll consider writing & writing frequently even if it only makes you feel better.

This could easily escalate from a war of words to something much bloodier because I don't see Trump as particularly stable.

It's sad to confess, but I see Putin as the more seasoned, experienced & rational of the two leaders.

Whatever the US Policy Makers decide will not be based on any care for the Syrian people under Assad or what is in America's best interests as historically, the Israeli lobbies dominate US Mid East policy.

Good luck
 
Never Trumpers and the Leftist media are trying to goat trump into this conflict. They think it will be his undoing.

Trump campaigned against intervention.

I look at this situation as what is described in Isaiah 17:1. All the actors are in play.

Trump lambasted Obama for tipping his hat on air strikes. Yet Trump does the exact same thing. The man is slowly realizing this job is not a cake walk.
 
No, actually. In reality, Saddam got his equipment from France and the USSR. All the US did was supply him with intel when he was at war with an enemy of the United States. We promptly threw him out of Kuwait when he invaded, then we tossed him out of power years later. "Propped him up" my ass.

I hate to break it to you but Saddam was actively radicalizing his populace. His former secret police play key roles in the ISIS command structure. The argument that "oh, if even Saddam had been left alone to gas his own people, there wouldn't be terrorism" is a joke.

As usual, the claims you make are full of ****.....but by all means, go on mourning Saddam. Just keep in mind that, as usual, nothing about his overthrow was either a "war crime" or "terrorism".

Me mourn Saddam? LOL, right. I have the same regard for Saddam as I do for Ronny RayGun.

here's a bone

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran – Foreign Policy

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Funny how the US Government wants to have it's cake & eat it too.

Well, I suppose ole Ronny RayGun & Saddam are pretty good buddies now seeing how they likely both reside in the same place, since they are both guilty of gassing their fellow humans.
 
Last edited:
While it may seem futile, I hope you'll consider writing & writing frequently even if it only makes you feel better.

This could easily escalate from a war of words to something much bloodier because I don't see Trump as particularly stable.

It's sad to confess, but I see Putin as the more seasoned, experienced & rational of the two leaders.

Whatever the US Policy Makers decide will not be based on any care for the Syrian people under Assad or what is in America's best interests as historically, the Israeli lobbies dominate US Mid East policy.

Good luck

thanks for the information on the topic
 
That's where I'm at too. Just as he was instructed to "do not congratulate", he is being instructed in other ways we can only imagine. In the last year he has made other references to "I had no choice" regarding signing things.

It was more like, "I couldn't turn down the money for the military" but, I get your point.
 
Trump lambasted Obama for tipping his hat on air strikes. Yet Trump does the exact same thing. The man is slowly realizing this job is not a cake walk.

I don't think the difficulty of the job was in doubt.

I'm not as worried what Trump will do but rather what reaction his actions get from the parties involved.
 
Oh really? Srenbrencia was a lie? The Serbs weren’t ethnically cleansing anyone? Saddam didn’t brutally invade Kuwait? Iraqi troops didn’t rape their way through Kuwait City? Iraq didn’t have chemical weapons? (Despite using said weapons on the Kurds and the Iraqi Air Force admitting they’d moved the weapons into Syria)? Gaddafi didn’t sponsor dozens of terrorist groups for decades including ordering multiple attacks in the West?

What a titanicly large load of cap.

The argument that Assad was “set up” is downright idiotic. Had either ISIS or AQ, who, according to Assad backers, compose the entire non Kurdish resistance to him, acquired chemical weapons, they would not have used them in Syria. They would have deployed such weapons on the streets of a major European city like, say, Paris or Berlin.

Some Americans and westerners may be fed up with their darling tyrants being tossed from power and meeting a bad end, but funnily enough, most people are smart enough to realize that the screams of “lies all lies” from the perpetrators are crap. Hell, look at the Japanese nowadays, trying to cash in with the “we did nothing wrong in Nanking” crap.

The serbs did ethnically cleanse, but it was grossly exaggerated to make it look like the holocaust when in reality what was going on there was no different than many other countries in the middle east africa and eastern europe, it was basically atrocity propoganda, a means to scare the population into supporting war. Saddam did invade kuwait, however the pretext for swift american intervention was based entirely on a lie, and the woman who pushed the lie admitted she lied just to get an american response. Iraq could not be found with any chemical weapons justifying an invasion, they some old rockets sitting in a warehouse with mustard gas but that is not a viable excuse for war, as mustard gas is so easy to manufacture any redneck can make a trip to walmart and make it.

The argument is not really far fetched, isis and the rebels had been both caught numerous times with chemical weapons, britain was caught selling all the materials to make sarin to the rebels, and russia syria managed to find the only chemical weapons facilities still in syria, inside eastern ghouta wherew western govts were fighting tooth and nail to keep people out. The russians claim they recovered 40 tons of chemical weapons from eastern ghouta alone, which is nearly half as much as assad had during the peak of his chemical weapons program. Mind you russians at this moment are offering full protection of the site to opcw workers from the un to investigate, while the us wants jim investigators who do not investigate the site but rather only use information supplied by rebels and white helmets. Keep in mind the opcw was in the past able to study a suspected site, and ruled the rebels launched the attack, western govts have constantly vetoes using them to investigate and instead pushed the jim which does not investigate the site itself but rather claim and info from rebel groups.
 
Um, no. As abysmally stupid as Trump certainly is, Putin is (thankfully) not stupid. He's evil, but he's not stupid. Thanks to his long years of experience in the KGB, he is as well-educated as anyone on the planet as to what can happen if the new Cold War turns hot, and he will know when it's time to step back from the brink. He wants to ruin America (if for no other reason than revenge for the USSR's loss of the Cold War), but he will not do so at the cost of risking a global thermonuclear exchange. The logic of Mutually Assured Destruction - as twisted as it is - lives on.
For someone who in a post or two earlier complained about someone making assumptions about what a person might do you sure seem to have no problem doing exactly that. So is it just you who can make assumptions or is there a list of people who are allowed.
 
Back
Top Bottom