that Syrian Civil War is NO JOKE VOL. over 1300 dead after alleged Nerve gas attack

Wr said:
People are forgetting how close in proximity Egypt is to Syria.

What about refugees?

I saw that Sweden granted open asylum to all Syrian refugees.

Don't you think this will start another ethnic problem?
Click to expand...

agreed. Sweden is taking on a whole population whose values are diametrically opposed to Sweden's.
 
I know a dude in air force w/ me about to head over there :smh:

and Im in Afghan right now, our hospital sent down a team nearby to standby in case something jumps off.
 
Last edited:
Bandit Country said:
agreed. Sweden is taking on a whole population whose values are diametrically opposed to Sweden's.
Click to expand...

Plus with unemployment as high as 60% in parts of europe, i don't really see this helping. Especially with the rise of neo-nazi political parties over there, seems like another humanitarian issue down the road.
 
JJs07 said:
If Syria has no interest w/ the US, why get involved? This is pissing me off to no end. A complete waste of resources and money...especially since we have so many problems here stateside that are ignored.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion on this matter and your statement above.  Just to clarify, as Americans we do know that chemical weapons were used on the Syrian people.  As regular American citizens, we might not factually know which side or opposition used the chemical weapons but we do know that chemical weapons were used that killed many Syrians. 

With that in mind as a global power, do you think the United States should do nothing about chemical weapons being used on innocent people and children??  Just want to get your take on it.
 
Iranian Military Chief: 'We Will Support Syria To The End'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran...support-syria-to-the-end-2013-9#ixzz2e0IEAcJQ



Iran will support Syria "until the end" in the face of possible US-led military strikes, the chief of Iran's elite Quds Force unit was quoted Thursday by the media as saying.
Iran is Syria's main regional ally and some analysts believe a wider goal of US President Barack Obama's determination to launch a strike against the Damascus regime is to blunt Tehran's growing regional influence and any consequent threat to Washington ally Israel.

"The aim of the United States is not to protect human rights ... but to destroy the front of resistance (against Israel)," Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani was quoted as saying.

"We will support Syria to the end," he added in a speech to the Assembly of Experts, the body that supervises the work of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

He did not elaborate on the nature of the support and Iran has constantly denied allegations by Western powers that it has sent military forces to prop up President Bashar al-Assad's embattled regime.

A year ago, the chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said that members of the Quds Force foreign operations unit were in Syria but only to provide Assad's government with "counsel and advice".

Soleimani accused the US of using its claims that Syria's forces had unleashed chemical weapons on civilians last month as a "pretext" to try to topple Assad's regime.

Iran's Defence Minister Hossein Dehqan, meanwhile, ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria.

"The Syrians do not need us to provide them with weapons because they have a defensive anti-aircraft system themselves," he was cited in the local media as saying.

President Hassan Rowhani said Iran will do "everything to prevent" an attack on the Syrian regime, according to extracts from statements he made before the Assembly of Experts published in the media.

"Any action against Syria is against the interests of the region but also against the friends of the United States in this region," he said.

"Such action will help nobody."

The US, France and other countries accuse Assad's forces of launching chemical weapons attacks on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, which they say killed hundreds.

Obama is seeking congressional backing as well as broader international support for punitive strikes on Assad's regime.

Iran has warned that any military action against Syria risks sparking a broader regional conflagration.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran...support-syria-to-the-end-2013-9#ixzz2e0IWUjW9
Click to expand...

This is not a simple intervention. Too bad everybody is gonna change their tone in hindsight.
 
Here is the article with video
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html

John Kerry reveals Arab countries have offered to PAY America to carry out full-scale invasion of Syria
By DAVID MARTOSKO


Secretary of State John Kerry said during a hearing Wednesday in the House of Representatives that counties in the Arab world have offered to foot the entire bill for a U.S. military mission that destroys the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.
'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.'
Kerry, with a cadre of anti-war activists sitting behind him and holding red-painted hands aloft in protest, declined to name the countries that have proposed opening their purses.


Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen had asked Kerry to comment on the expenses related to carrying out attacks on Syria if Congress were to authorize them.
Following through on a use-of-force resolution, she said, 'could potentially cost ... billions.'
But Kerry said other nations that see Assad as a destabilizing force in the region have proposed to cover the costs.



As for 'the details of the offer, and the proposal on the table,' Ros-Lehtinen asked Kerry, 'what are the figures we are talking about?
'We don’t know what action we [will be] engaged in right now,' Kerry replied, 'but they have been quite significant. I mean, very significant.'
'In fact, some of them have said that if the U.S. is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost. That’s how dedicated they are to this.'


Kerry quickly clarified that the Pentagon was not planning to shake a tin cup in the Middle East in the hope of collecting donations.
'Obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it,' he said. 'But they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done.'
Kerry also closed the loop on an embarrassing episode from his Senate testimony on Tuesday, when he said he wouldn't rule out the use of ground troops if hostilities in Syria were to escalate.
'There will be no boots on the ground,' he said Wednesday.
'The president has said that again and again. And there is nothing in this authorization that should contemplate it. And, we reiterate, no boots on the ground.'
MailOnline asked three different defense and national security analysts to estimate the cost of a 90-day military action in Syria, to include – at minimum – small arms for anti-Assad resistance groups, missiles and armed drones launched from the Mediterranean Sea, and military flights over Syria, launched from Turkey, after weapons stockpiles and anti-aircraft positions are destroyed.
While cautioning that their estimates must not be attributed to them by name, and with a caveat expressed by one analyst that 'this is all educated guesswork,' the estimates ranged from $5 to $21 billion.
'You'd think rocket and jet fuel would be cheaper in that part of the world,' said one, 'but no such luck. This won't be a cheap mission.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html#ixzz2e35AWbdI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
AlBooBoo said:
Here is the article with video
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html

John Kerry reveals Arab countries have offered to PAY America to carry out full-scale invasion of Syria
By DAVID MARTOSKO


Secretary of State John Kerry said during a hearing Wednesday in the House of Representatives that counties in the Arab world have offered to foot the entire bill for a U.S. military mission that destroys the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.
'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.'
Kerry, with a cadre of anti-war activists sitting behind him and holding red-painted hands aloft in protest, declined to name the countries that have proposed opening their purses.


Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen had asked Kerry to comment on the expenses related to carrying out attacks on Syria if Congress were to authorize them.
Following through on a use-of-force resolution, she said, 'could potentially cost ... billions.'
But Kerry said other nations that see Assad as a destabilizing force in the region have proposed to cover the costs.



As for 'the details of the offer, and the proposal on the table,' Ros-Lehtinen asked Kerry, 'what are the figures we are talking about?
'We don’t know what action we [will be] engaged in right now,' Kerry replied, 'but they have been quite significant. I mean, very significant.'
'In fact, some of them have said that if the U.S. is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost. That’s how dedicated they are to this.'


Kerry quickly clarified that the Pentagon was not planning to shake a tin cup in the Middle East in the hope of collecting donations.
'Obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it,' he said. 'But they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done.'
Kerry also closed the loop on an embarrassing episode from his Senate testimony on Tuesday, when he said he wouldn't rule out the use of ground troops if hostilities in Syria were to escalate.
'There will be no boots on the ground,' he said Wednesday.
'The president has said that again and again. And there is nothing in this authorization that should contemplate it. And, we reiterate, no boots on the ground.'
MailOnline asked three different defense and national security analysts to estimate the cost of a 90-day military action in Syria, to include – at minimum – small arms for anti-Assad resistance groups, missiles and armed drones launched from the Mediterranean Sea, and military flights over Syria, launched from Turkey, after weapons stockpiles and anti-aircraft positions are destroyed.
While cautioning that their estimates must not be attributed to them by name, and with a caveat expressed by one analyst that 'this is all educated guesswork,' the estimates ranged from $5 to $21 billion.
'You'd think rocket and jet fuel would be cheaper in that part of the world,' said one, 'but no such luck. This won't be a cheap mission.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html#ixzz2e35AWbdI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

let me quess these are the same dynasties (saudi arabia, qatars and the likes) who pretty much have the same policies as previous dictators. these are called allies just because they are pro-western. how does this work?
 
Deuce King said:
Then maybe these 3rd party candidates should use to the internet more to get their message across, free marketing.  That's if their message is really that good to begin with. 
Click to expand...

Come on now... Free press via the internet vs 1.1 BILLION dollars in attack ads broadcast on prime time networks, and sporting events NIGHTLY for 6-12 months!? :lol:

If your best reply is a photo that was handpicked among the many that could be chosen and not even remote facts or arguments that suggest that extremist elements are running amok among FSA units, than there is nothing further to debate since you are driven by sensationalism over actual research and fact finding.
Click to expand...

Research or fact finding? Hmmm you mean like the FSA being linked to numerous terrorist tactics like IEDS and suicide bombers?

Every faction fighting in Syria are enemies of the United States. Do you NOT understand that?


 
Last edited:
Has anyone noticed that John Kerry looks really strange lately? IDK if he had some plastic surgery done or had a stroke, but he looks swollen. Maybe the lying has been eating him up from the inside.
 
REPORT: CHINA SENDS WARSHIPS TO COAST OF SYRIA


China has reportedly sent warships to the coast of Syria to “observe”
the actions of US and Russian ships as tensions build in preparation for
a potential military strike on Syria which could come as soon as next
week.According to the Russian news outlet Telegrafist.org,
the People’s Liberation Army dispatched the Ji****ngshan amphibious
dock landing ship and the vessel was seen passing through the Red Sea
towards the Suez Canal, the waterway in Egypt that leads to the
Mediterranean Sea and waters off the coast of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
According to the report, the ship has not been sent to
engage in any aggressive actions but is merely there to “observe” the
actions of Russian and US warships. However, the Ji****ngshan is
equipped for combat, is armed with missiles, and was utilized as part of a “show of force” in maneuvers aimed at defending the South China Sea earlier this year.
The report states that additional PLA warships have also been sent to the region but that their identity is unknown.


Yesterday it was reported that
Russia was sending three more ships – two destroyers and a missile
cruiser – to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster its forces which
already include three other warships dispatched over the last two weeks.
Earlier this week, Russia criticized the United States for
sending warships close to Syria, with Russian Defense Ministry official
Oleg Dogayev remarking, “The dispatch of ships armed with cruise
missiles toward Syria’s shores has a negative effect on the situation in
the region.”
Five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship are currently positioned in the eastern Mediterranean awaiting strike orders. The USS Nimitz and three other warships are also stationed in the nearby Red Sea.


In a related story, China today toughened its rhetoric on Syria, warning President Barack Obama that,
“Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy,
especially on the oil price – it will cause a hike in the oil price.”
The Global Times, a newspaper described by Foreign
Policy Magazine as “hyper nationalistic” and an “angry Chinese
government mouthpiece, also published an editorial yesterday which
slammed Obama for failing to prove that last month’s chemical weapons
attack was the work of the Syrian government, charging that Washington’s
“geopolitical interests” in the region were behind the military
build-up.
The editorial, which also complains of the total lack of media coverage in America concerning reports that Syrian rebels admitted responsibility for last month’s chemical weapons attack, accuses the White House of “ignoring logic as it beats war drums.”

Read more at
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
 
Deuce King,

No we shouldn't. If the international community is that mad, let them handle it. These Arabian countries that are willing to give us money to fight need to send their own armies to Syria. The American people on both sides of the aisle don't want this and are writing their politicians in anger at the possibility of us doing so.
 
AlBooBoo said:
I was watching Fox news yesterday. They mentioned that Dyess Air Force base is moving nuclear warheads to the East Coast of the United States in a secret transfer that has no paper trail.

Here is an article from Infowar's
Click to expand...

nothing you said makes any sense.... adding an infowars link as source further dilutes your credibility
 
Last edited:
The U.S., Britain and Israel have Used Chemical Weapons within the Last 10 Years

The U.S., Britain and Israel have Used Chemical Weapons within the Last 10 Years
Posted on August 27, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
Those Condemning Syria Have Themselves Recently Used Chemical Weapons

We condemn all use of chemical weapons.

But the U.S. used chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq in 2004. Evidence here, here, here, here, here, here.

Israeli also used white phosphorous in 2009 during “Operation Cast Lead” (and perhaps subsequently). Israel ratified Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”) – which outlaws the use of incendiary devices in war – in 2007. So this was a war crime.

Moreover, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”.

The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”

The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds. Interestingly, it has just come out that the U.S. encouraged Saddam’s use of chemical weapons.

Moreover, the U.S. and Britain have been dropping depleted uranium in virtually every country they fight, which causes severe health problems. See this, this, this and this.

University of California at Irvine professor of Middle Eastern history Mark LeVine writes:

Not only did the US aid the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi government, it also used chemical weapons on a large scale during its 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, in the form of depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition.

As Dahr Jamail’s reporting for Al Jazeera has shown, the use of DU by the US and UK has very likely been the cause not only of many cases of Gulf War Syndrome suffered by Iraq war veterans, but also of thousands of instances of birth defects, cancer and other diseases – causing a “large-scale public health disaster” and the “highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied” – suffered by Iraqis in areas subjected to frequent and intense attacks by US and allied occupation forces.

And Israel has been accused of using depleted uranium in Syria.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. But it is hypocritical for the U.S., Britain and Israel to say that we should bomb Syria because the government allegedly used chemical weapons.

Note: The U.S. sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange. But that was some 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...chemical-weapons-within-the-last-8-years.html
 
Rell826 said:
Deuce King,

No we shouldn't. If the international community is that mad, let them handle it. These Arabian countries that are willing to give us money to fight need to send their own armies to Syria. The American people on both sides of the aisle don't want this and are writing their politicians in anger at the possibility of us doing so.
Click to expand...

I respect that and I agree with that to a certain extent. I'm of the mindset that if your own house isn't in order that you shouldn't try to correct or fix someone else's. Thank you for your response.
 
Last edited:
Deuce King said:
You can forget that champ, your wasting your time even thinking such.  In 2016 there will be no third party of significance just like in 2008 and 2012 there was no third party of significance.  Ralph Nader wasted his time in 2008, Ron Paul wasted his time in 2012, and all these individuals that have supporters foolishly wasted their time during each presidential cycle.  I don't want you personally to waste your time in 2016 so be sure to throw away any desire or possibility of a third party system in 2016..................got that.
Click to expand...
You're wasting your time voting for Republicans and Democrats that don't care about you. You can only fool yourself so much into believing they do but they don't. Although, your attitude is precisely what keeps in them power. They want to continue the two-party system because it gives them a great chance of keeping power (only to appease their corporate fat cat bosses like Exxon, Dow, Monsanto, General Electric and those scam bag corporations that circumvent the tax laws). Is it any wonder Obama refused to meet with citizen and doctor delegations prior to drafting "Obama-care"?

Did you know Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota as a third party candidate?

http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/exclusionofpop.html

Six weeks before the 1998 gubernatorial election in Minnesota, The Star Tribune pegged Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura at 10 percent in the polls. Three debates later, on October 20, he was at 21 percent. Remarkably, Ventura's cash-strapped campaign had not yet aired a single television advertisement. On Election Day, Ventura captured 37 percent of the vote and became the governor of Minnesota. Governor Ventura explained his astounding victory, "I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you're allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don't want to ever see that happen again."

The "non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) controls the corporate-sponsored debates. As you may have guessed it's a total fraud conjured up by D's and R's in 1984 to wrestle control of the debates away from the League of Women Voters. In 1988 the CPD and League of Women voters agreed to sponsor a debate each -- that is until the CPD slipped them a memorandum telling them how the debates would be run and the topics covered. The result is the joke of a recital we see in the presidential debates. This is what the League of Women Voters said when they pulled their stake out of the debates:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The rise of third parties is entirely possible. Just imagine if 1% of this country got mad as hell about this rotten dupoloy. Heck even .5% would be enough to create real change because change is definitely not happening with the corporate puppets this country keeps electing. It's really not as difficult as people are making it out to be. It just requires effort, champ. Got that?
 
Deuce King said:
I respect your opinion on this matter and your statement above.  Just to clarify, as Americans we do know that chemical weapons were used on the Syrian people.  As regular American citizens, we might not factually know which side or opposition used the chemical weapons but we do know that chemical weapons were used that killed many Syrians. 

With that in mind as a global power, do you think the United States should do nothing about chemical weapons being used on innocent people and children??  Just want to get your take on it.
Click to expand...


Rell826 said:
Deuce King,

No we shouldn't. If the international community is that mad, let them handle it. These Arabian countries that are willing to give us money to fight need to send their own armies to Syria. The American people on both sides of the aisle don't want this and are writing their politicians in anger at the possibility of us doing so.
Click to expand...

Rell beat me to it.

My parents are HUGE Obama supporters....however, when bringing up Syria, this is the first time I can recall them vehemently opposing his idea to go in.
 
Last edited:
Why would Assad use chemical warfare?

Where's the concrete evidence besides some doctored up videos?

Yeah, I'm going there, and I've been lurking this thread, and some dudes already know what's up...another fabricated conflict. 
 
The Great Bully of all Nations...the US just needs some attention. 

This issue all of a sudden unifies both parties for the time being. 
 
I'm not really pro war but all these talks of the US's debt, tax payer money, Chicago, etc sounds a bit selfish to me. Is any of that really worse than innocent kids getting bombed and chemically attacked? What did they do for us to turn a blind eye to them?
I don't care that's it's going on on the other side of the world that's fellow human beings out there.
Ultimately I don't know what should happen but I'm not feeling the popular opinion of we should just ignore it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom