|
U.S. Attacks Syria (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Why arent they presenting it to everyone then?I mean they must have had a good reason to launch those attacks right?:rolleyes:
|
Ok, they have presented their case. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle5030766.ece
| quote: |
Wait what reason are you talking about?they changed their so called reason of war so many times.I doubt they even know the reason themselves anymore.Tell us whats the real reason then?war on terror?:rolleyes:
|
The US gets most of its oil from North or South America. The war for "oil", is about controling foreign growth. Most countries are dependent on oil from the middle east or russia. More than anything from the middle east.
| quote: |
How are you so sure about that?
|
well, for one thing Cyrus would not have gotten his ass kicked and had he invaded Iran. he would have done so with ease.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by guerra-monstru
well, for one thing Cyrus would not have gotten his ass kicked and had he invaded Iran. he would have done so with ease.
|
so were're talking about Cyrus the Great right? Why would he invade Iran (Persia) when it all started from there? |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
so were're talking about Cyrus the Great right? Why would he invade Iran (Persia) when it all started from there? |
I was just making a reference because he said that Saddam was going to gain control of the whole region. And in order to do that he should not have been defeated twice before the Iraq invasion once by a very weak country compared to the US & Nato. And Cyrus would never have been defeated like Saddam was. So Saddam was no threat as Hardcore said he was. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| If Saddam was no threat then why the did we have to kill him and up his entire country for the next 100 years?clearly according to you he was no threat to the region or Istrael for that matter. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
If Saddam was no threat then why the did we have to kill him and up his entire country for the next 100 years?clearly according to you he was no threat to the region or Istrael for that matter. |
He wasn't. Obviously, you are overlooking the fact that he was happy just selling oil so that he could buy expensive cars and build palaces. The US saw him and saw an idiot. If he was not seen as one by the americans. Then they would have never invaded. And another thing, the americans dont care about the stability of Iraq. Things will eventually recover and it will prosper better in its way now than under saddam. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| This isnt about Iraq so stop talking about him. Its about the US attacking more countries and the scary part. Is that there are going to be coming more invasions from the US. Not because the leaders are a threat. But because the US wants control of the middle east. And the only way to do that is by bringing more instability which will increase "terrorism". And which will give the US even more control of oil and gas supplies that Asia and Europe are dependent on. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by guerra-monstru
This isnt about Iraq so stop talking about him. Its about the US attacking more countries and the scary part. Is that there are going to be coming more invasions from the US. Not because the leaders are a threat. But because the US wants control of the middle east. And the only way to do that is by bringing more instability which will increase "terrorism". And which will give the US even more control of oil and gas supplies that Asia and Europe are dependent on. |
it's actually quite misleading to say the US attacked syria, just like it's misleading to say the US attacked pakistan. in both cases, the US attacked specific non-governmental locations to eliminate non-governmental persons. the goal wasn't to overthrow either government nor was the intent to destabalize either country. the incident is more accurately described as "an attack on a location within the borders of syria." |
|
|
| The17sss |
hmmmmmmm...... Syria gave the green light to the U.S.?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...415130766?f=rss
How curious, Bergman goes on to note, that a raid in broad daylight would attract no resistance from Syrian anti-aircraft installations. Not sure I buy it — it seems just as likely that it’s opportunistic spin designed to drive a wedge between Assad and the jihadis he hosts — but I like it. And it’s at least facially plausible that the regime would prefer to let the U.S. do its dirty work for it and play the victim rather than take on the fundies itself and end up in some sort of protracted, sporadic counterinsurgency of the sort Pakistan’s bogged down in. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
it's actually quite misleading to say the US attacked syria, just like it's misleading to say the US attacked pakistan. in both cases, the US attacked specific non-governmental locations to eliminate non-governmental persons. the goal wasn't to overthrow either government nor was the intent to destabalize either country. the incident is more accurately described as "an attack on a location within the borders of syria." |
Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.
So if the Russians bomb your house, it's all good, right? :)
Placing troops or launching weapons into any sovereign nation is an open act of war. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.
So if the Russians bomb your house, it's all good, right? :) |
i guess it would depend on why russia bombed my house.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Placing troops or launching weapons into any sovereign nation is an open act of war. |
so, under that explanation, the US has committed an open act of war against Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Kosovo, Belgium, and Bulgaria (just to name a few places where the US places troops within a sovereign nation). |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
it's actually quite misleading to say the US attacked syria, just like it's misleading to say the US attacked pakistan. in both cases, the US attacked specific non-governmental locations to eliminate non-governmental persons. the goal wasn't to overthrow either government nor was the intent to destabalize either country. the incident is more accurately described as "an attack on a location within the borders of syria." |
so they say. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
I'm reading the comments from the link and by golly there are alot of racist people around the world.
They seem clueless and arrogant like firestarter etc. |
Fortunately you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to me...
Yea, my comments were pretty darn racist....OOoooo....
Some people have no idea even what racist IS. :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
