Page 3 of 5
#81
Quote by Pat_s1t
You know I only quoted Fox as saying that the chemicals have about 60 days before the expire, right? The rest is from NBC.


Maybe replace it with Wikipedia. The length of time before Sarin degrades also depends on the quality of the chemicals used to make it, but there are missiles made to mix the chemicals while in flight reducing the need to create the Sarin gas until the missiles are actually launched.
I have a huge fear if rays.
#82
Quote by ChrisBW
Maybe replace it with Wikipedia. The length of time before Sarin degrades also depends on the quality of the chemicals used to make it, but there are missiles made to mix the chemicals while in flight reducing the need to create the Sarin gas until the missiles are actually launched.
Yeah I read up a bit on those yesterday, but the situation as I understand is that even though Syria has missiles capable of delivering the sarin gas, the supposed US Intel suggests theyre being put into aerial bombs instead which would give the mixture an approximate effectiveness deadline.
#83
Quote by blake1221
Well, according to Ali, who I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt, nothing's going to happen so intervention won't be necessary at all.

Let's see this one through, and just see what happens.

Your post reeks of seriousness when Ali is obviously being sarcastic, just giving you a heads up.
Better, Faster, Stronger

Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas State Wildcats
Quote by airbrendie
Hey guys in the last 3 weeks I ****ed all the girls in this picture, what do you think?

#84
Quote by Hydra150
From heaven.

;__;

Oh my god I lost it.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#85
Quote by daytripper75
I don't like the idea of intervention, but if chemical weapons are used I think it's necessary.


Assad is assuring that he won't use them. I tend to think he's telling the truth. If he truly wants to remain in power, it would be a foolish move. There is no chance he keeps his office if he uses those weapons.

I think his chances of retaining office are slim in the long run, but a decision like that would end it immediately.


This is very interesting, but poses a far grimmer picture. It argues that Assad and the Alawites have lost control of much of the country, and would prefer to see it the rest of it divided and infighting than in control of one authority that could establish control, and possibly dominance over, the whole country.

From that POV, I wonder if using chemical weapons is that irrational.
#86
I just woke up and so my eyes are a little blurry, I read the title as Syria Loads Chemical Weapons Into Boobs
Quote by barden1069
A "tubescreamer" is a person paid by a guitarist to stand behind the amp and scream at the tubes. This terrifies the tubes into overdriving and delivers a thick, harmonic-rich tone.
#87
inb4 ultra-liberal non-interventionalist ****tards.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#88
Quote by Todd Hart
inb4 ultra-liberal non-interventionalist ****tards.

That's like inb4ing the sun coming up.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#89
Quote by Todd Hart
inb4 ultra-liberal non-interventionalist ****tards.


What does intervention here achieve, exactly? It's all very well bleating about how we should help, but what exactly is the plan? Blow up the presidential palace and just hope that all the chemical weapons disappear?
#90
Quote by gabcd86
What does intervention here achieve, exactly? It's all very well bleating about how we should help, but what exactly is the plan? Blow up the presidential palace and just hope that all the chemical weapons disappear?


Well it potentially prevents him from slaughtering thousands of civilians.

And I was more talking about post-inevitable slaughter - people will still be crying that we shouldn't intervene, just as they did after Saddam and his goons explicitly committed genocide on thousands of Kurds.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#91
Quote by Todd Hart
Well it potentially prevents him from slaughtering thousands of civilians.

And I was more talking about post-inevitable slaughter - people will still be crying that we shouldn't intervene, just as they did after Saddam and his goons explicitly committed genocide on thousands of Kurds.

"Nah see Saddam was a pretty bad guy, but we should never have gone there"
#93
Quote by willT08
"Nah see Saddam was a pretty bad guy, but we should never have gone there"


Was going to give you an enema with my foot and then I realised it was you and in speech-marks
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#94
Quote by Todd Hart
inb4 ultra-liberal non-interventionalist ****tards.

war is bad mmkay.

fight wars with love, not bombs.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#95
Love is also a type of bomb. More specifically, STD bombs.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#96
Quote by VanTheKraut
Your post reeks of seriousness when Ali is obviously being sarcastic, just giving you a heads up.


See, I was hoping he was sarcastic, but he's kept up that attitude across multiple threads, and he got seriously butthurt over a comment I made and has been kind of on edge with me, so I was just trying to see this out.

Thank God he was being sarcastic. He was coming across as a North Korean with his blind faith in his government.

And the post you quoted was also sarcasm.
#98
Quote by blake1221
See, I was hoping he was sarcastic, but he's kept up that attitude across multiple threads, and he got seriously butthurt over a comment I made and has been kind of on edge with me, so I was just trying to see this out.

Thank God he was being sarcastic. He was coming across as a North Korean with his blind faith in his government.

And the post you quoted was also sarcasm.


I want to say he's being cautiously sarcastic given that his country probably monitors everything he says.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#99
Quote by willT08
"Nah see Saddam was a pretty bad guy, but we should never have gone there"


Yeah, ****ing people with their refusal to follow your black-and-white morality.
#100
Quote by bradulator
I want to say he's being cautiously sarcastic given that his country probably monitors everything he says.


I like that.


As a reason, not as general principle.
#101
Quote by gabcd86
Yeah, ****ing people with their refusal to follow your black-and-white morality.

How is it moral to just sit back and watch as civilians get slaughtered?
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#102
Quote by gabcd86
Yeah, ****ing people with their refusal to follow your black-and-white morality.

"Yeah, I know he committed genocide with weapons of mass destruction. But, come on, US tryna be world police isn't okay"
#103
Quote by willT08
"Yeah, I know he committed genocide with weapons of mass destruction. But, come on, US tryna be world police isn't okay"

That was different.
I didn't know any Iraqi UGers.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#104
Quote by WCPhils
How is it moral to just sit back and watch as civilians get slaughtered?


How is it moral to blunder in and plunge a country into a bloody civil war for three years?

And Will, when you're done being a smug ****, I've got no general objection to humanitarian interventions, and given the way things are, of course it's always going to be the West doing them, and that's not always a bad thing. However, there's a difference in between it not always being immoral to intervene and it always being wise/practical to do so.

Look at the Sahara now - Libya is a mess, which is having knock-on effects in Mali. Do we really want that to happen in a country with WMDs, smack-bang in the most volatile region in the world?

Do we even have the capacity right now to make such a massive military intervention? A few months back I read that the munitions fired at Libya still hadn't been replenished. Most of the Western world is cutting back on military budgets.

etc. etc.

Or, on the other hand, we could shake our tiny fists until our governments do something hasty and ill-advised.
#105
Quote by bradulator
I want to say he's being cautiously sarcastic given that his country probably monitors everything he says.


Yeah, it's probably best that we don't continue to ask him what's going on. :/
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#106
Quote by WCPhils
How is it moral to just sit back and watch as civilians get slaughtered?


It isn't, but you also have to ask yourself how it's moral to potentially throw the world into an even more dangerous situation that would result in many more deaths (as I mentioned earlier). Like I said before, this is one of those things where no one wins, and the world basically has two options. We can either do something to stop what's going down in Syria and risk some serious shit going down, or we can sit back and leave the fate of the Syrian population to be decided by Assad.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#107
Quote by WCPhils
How is it moral to just sit back and watch as civilians get slaughtered?

journalistic integritymabob.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#108
Quote by gabcd86
How is it moral to blunder in and plunge a country into a bloody civil war for three years?


People only ask this question because it's Africans and Arabs that are at risk. If the UK government began gassing it's own people everyone in America and Europe would demand that their government took action immediately.

Look at the Sahara now - Libya is a mess, which is having knock-on effects in Mali. Do we really want that to happen in a country with WMDs, smack-bang in the most volatile region in the world?


Libya has been a 'free' country for a year, of course it's still a mess.

And yes, yes I do.

Do we even have the capacity right now to make such a massive military intervention? A few months back I read that the munitions fired at Libya still hadn't been replenished. Most of the Western world is cutting back on military budgets.


Ah yes, money > civilians.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Dec 6, 2012,
#109
Quote by Todd Hart
People only ask this question because it's Africans and Arabs that are at risk. If the UK government began gassing it's own people everyone in America and Europe would demand that their government took action immediately.


Libya has been a 'free' country for a year, of course it's still a mess.

And yes, yes I do.


Ah yes, money > civilians.


So you would favour a botched ****job of an invasion over no invasion?
#110
Quote by TooktheAtrain
So you would favour a botched ****job of an invasion over no invasion?


I'm not favoring an invasion at all, I'm favoring not standing idly by and allowing a dictator to slaughter his people by the thousand.

Again, I propose that if this were the UK, or Greece, or Arizona then people would be demanding that their government does something to prevent the slaughter - the fact that it's thousands of miles away lets people pretend that it's a different situation.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Dec 6, 2012,
#111
Quote by Todd Hart
I'm not favoring an invasion at all, I'm favoring not standing idly by and allowing a dictator to slaughter his people by the thousand.

That seems uncharacteristically evasive of you.

What do you believe should be done, other than just something?
#112
Quote by TooktheAtrain
That seems uncharacteristically evasive of you.

What do you believe should be done, other than just something?


It's not evasive: I'm defending potential intervention, not invasion. There's a distinct difference.

And I don't know, we don't have enough information to act yet, and I'm not a military scientist. I'm just sick of people immediately saying that we have to just let the middle east eat itself (or more correctly, the dictators in middle east eat their population) because "it's not our fight hurrdurr".
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#113
we should drop a nuclear bomb on the middle east. it would solve all the problems. there would be no repercussions.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#114
Quote by jakesmellspoo
we should drop a nuclear bomb on the middle east. it would solve all the problems. there would be no repercussions.
First sensible suggestion all thread. I'm in favour.
#115
Quote by Todd Hart
It's not evasive: I'm defending potential intervention, not invasion. There's a distinct difference.

And I don't know, we don't have enough information to act yet, and I'm not a military scientist. I'm just sick of people immediately saying that we have to just let the middle east eat itself (or more correctly, the dictators in middle east eat their population) because "it's not our fight hurrdurr".


Oh, my bad. That seems a fair position to take.
#116
Quote by jakesmellspoo
we should drop a nuclear bomb on the middle east. it would solve all the problems. there would be no repercussions.


I don't even think something with as many megatons as Tsar Bomba is capable of destroying the entire middle east.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#117
The thing with US intervention being an issue is that they have almost always taken the lead in the past. I mean, they fought in Korea on behalf of South-Korea, fought in Vietnam on behalf of South-Vietnam, fought in the Middle-East on behalf of the seemingly wiser Soviet Union / Russia. If it wasn't for the intervention in Iraq, one could say that for the last ten years, America has only been supporting instead of charging.

Regardless, whatever nation takes charge of any intervention must do so quick, precise, and with caution, whether it's the USA or France.

Note how I'm not touching the viability of an actual intervention
#118
Quote by willT08
"Nah see Saddam was a pretty bad guy, but we should never have gone there"

We shouldn't have.

Quote by WCPhils
How is it moral to just sit back and watch as civilians get slaughtered?

Depends entirely on the alternative. If intervention means embroiling ourselves in another years-long civil war that ends up killing more civilians than the bad guy we're supposedly going in to take out, is that really something desirable for either us or them?

Sometimes there are no pretty options. It's rarely as simple as "this guy's a dick, let's go get him!"
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#119
Quote by ErikLensherr
Depends entirely on the alternative. If intervention means embroiling ourselves in another years-long civil war that ends up killing more civilians than the bad guy we're supposedly going in to take out, is that really something desirable for either us or them?


We have killed nowhere near as many civilians in the middle East as Saddam alone did. To claim that we have is to be utterly ignorant and utterly, contemptibly blasé about mass genocide.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Dec 6, 2012,
#120
Quote by Lord_Doku
The thing with US intervention being an issue is that they have almost always taken the lead in the past. I mean, they fought in Korea on behalf of South-Korea, fought in Vietnam on behalf of South-Vietnam, fought in the Middle-East on behalf of the seemingly wiser Soviet Union / Russia. If it wasn't for the intervention in Iraq, one could say that for the last ten years, America has only been supporting instead of charging.

Regardless, whatever nation takes charge of any intervention must do so quick, precise, and with caution, whether it's the USA or France.

Note how I'm not touching the viability of an actual intervention


I'm pretty sure you got that one mixed up.

I also don't think France surrendering is the best option here.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"