Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Teddybrrr

Controversial Topic Thread

Recommended Posts

TOPIC CHANGE!!!

 

SYRIA

 

Why hasnt America intervened?? Is it upto America to intervene?? What do you understand about the situation??

 

Kgo..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad mentioned three avenues that can be taken, two of the three needing consensus.

 

The first is sanctions, which have been implemented,

 

The second is a consensus to intervene from the UN, china and Russia amongst others don't want to get their dicks wet, so that won't happen.

 

The third is seeking permission to intervene from neighboring countries, in which I doubt te US would want to. The US can't risk straining foreign relations in the Middle East any more than it has, so a f**kup and intervention is the last thing on their agenda.

 

There is very scarce knowledge about the rebels in syria, at least the rebels in Libya operated out of benghazi, a rebel stronghold. this situation has an extreme potential to erupt into a royal f**kup of biblical proportions, so everyone is keeping out of this for now.

 

The first country to use force would have been turkey, seeing as Syrians shot down Turkish aircraft in Turkish airspace, but further complication prevent them from intervening too.

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very true.. i think we may see some movement by the US after the upcoming elections, but right now it seems as if Obama doesnt want to alienate any more voters by engaging in another conflict that 'has nothing to do with the good ol USofA'.

 

Something that is unknown about the Syrian rebels is alot of them seem to align themselves with Al-Qaeda, basically due to the fact that Syria has now become a breeding ground for Islamist Terrorists due to the anarchy that has been present for the last 18 months.. This is just another thorn in the foot of Obama. Yes, President al-Assad is accused of ordering the miltiary to fire upon protestors and un-armed civilians, but how many of those civilians harbour a hatred towards the US, and how many of them are aligning themselves with the very group that Obama has been trying to exterminate during his time in power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proportion of rebels who align with al quaeda isn't high enough to pose an issue itself, it's the fact that these rebels operate in small enclaves scattered throughout syria that are getting shot up by the military. Untill the rebels can secure a large enough territory towards it border near turkey, It'd be a logistical nightmare trying to intervene and provide support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too close to election to take another pro war standpoint, especially after all the flak they have gotten from the voting public ( or maybe non voting, who knows ) about getting their troops home.

 

my opinion anyway on the lack of action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too close to election to take another pro war standpoint, especially after all the flak they have gotten from the voting public ( or maybe non voting, who knows ) about getting their troops home.

 

my opinion anyway on the lack of action

 

That's also one of the reasons too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget the fact that the USA cannot afford another war right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont forget if they did intervene theyd have to stick around and fork out for rebuilding. they dont need to have to do more of that and have more pressing problems to fix at home.

and I dont think the Syrian rebels have asked for any sort of help from anyone? and I think intervening would just cause more death and destruction and a total waste of money, and then as spongeboy said regarding the rebels, not much is known about them and they arent as clearly apparent as the Libyan rebels were.

 

the only time countries will intervene is once its all pretty much done and a government needs to be established again..

oh yeah and dont forget Iran has been supporting the syrian government. so if america intervene it could be a complete f**k up. then israel could chime in too and make it even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget the fact that the USA cannot afford another war right now.

I see this as the biggest thing holding them back now as well. They'll need quite a few years to recover from their current war efforts before they can think about taking on anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOPIC CHANGE!!!

 

SYRIA

 

Why hasnt America intervened?? Is it upto America to intervene?? What do you understand about the situation??

 

Kgo..

 

The media has really put a bad perspective on the whole Syrian Civil War. They make it out to be like the whole country hates the government, when in reality, the number of people against it is actually quite small. The media is also very good at making one group out to be good, and another to be very bad. many countries have had interventions, and the U.S has supplied the rebels withstuff like medical aid and communications equipment. All non-lethal equipment, so they don't get dragged into it too far. Other countries have helped the rebels as well, but for the U.S to go and send troops in to fight with the rebels would be stupid and unnecessary. They can't afford another war, and would just be making things worse for themselves. Australia has already said they aren't going to intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how much oil is in Syria?

 

Not enough to break even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how much oil is in Syria?

 

You're probably thinking of Saudi Arabia, Syria exports a lot of oil but not nearly as much as other countries. You're not allowed to destroy resources or steal them, if that's what you were thinking. It was banned in the Geneva Conventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it's not allowed doesn't mean people don't do it.

 

Otherwise we wouldn't have prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^wut

 

What do you mean prisons aren't allowed? Not sure I understand. Or do you mean the stuff they do in prisons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^wut

 

What do you mean prisons aren't allowed? Not sure I understand. Or do you mean the stuff they do in prisons?

 

It means we wouldn't have/need prisions if people didn't break the rules. We have prisons because some people don't care what the Police/Government/UN say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means we wouldn't have/need prisions if people didn't break the rules. We have prisons because some people don't care what the Police/Government/UN say.

 

This guy...

 

humanity_proves_its_worth_640_high_10.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it was just how it was worded...

 

But that's completely different! We're talking about entire nations breaking the rules of warfare itself, not some guy stealing a loaf of bread. If anybody disobeys what's written in the Geneva Convention, and end up having to pay for it...we're not talking about a knuckle-wrapping here. I don't think it would leave a good mark on their reputation either. You realise the military can't just go around doing what they want, no matter how stupid the media makes the U.S army out to be.

Besides, there have been no cases of anybody destroying/rendering useless/stealing resources at all during the Syrian Civil War.

 

TLDR: Military bodies and civilians are different things, and nobody has broken the Geneva Convention in the Syrian Civil War anyway, and likely never will.

 

Also, you didn't have to get so angry. I asked you to clarify, but you responded the typical way everyone does when they think they're really smart, and acted like I was retarded. So cheers.

Edited by Teddybrrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR: Military bodies and civilians are different things, and nobody has been caught breaking the Geneva Convention in the Syrian Civil War anyway, and likely never will.

 

I fixed that for you.

 

And you are right, laws that govern countries are even weaker than laws that govern people, because countries who have the biggest guns and the most money enjoy the benefit of warping/bending or downright disobeying laws that smaller countries would be absolutely destroyed for breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much, easier for a country to be a bully than it is a person.

 

If that wasn't the case why do we still have wars, WHY DO WE HAVE THE GENEVA CONVENTION? To stop people being shit *milkshakes* - has it helped... not really?

 

Why do you have an immobiliser, GPS tracking and a club lock in your car - to deter bad people - not that it stops them (it can and might but is more of a deterrent).

 

Edit: I never said you were retarded.

 

Slow down, think about it, re-read it then ask.

Edited by TheApothecary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can see your point that it's obviously a lot harder to control, and unless a country LOSES a war nobody can do much about it. Also, the Geneve Convention has actually helped a lot, it's warded people away from commiting war-crimes and punished those who have. Better than not having laws at all! If you were a victim of a war crime, wouldn't you be glad there were laws in place to punish them?

 

As for the car security, same thing again. It deters people from commiting war crimes, and even if it doesn't stop them 100% of the time, it's still good to have it there. If the Geneva Convention wasn't in place then I'm almost certain both sides of the civil war would be commiting war crimes, as there would be nothing really to stop them.

 

I know you didn't directly call me retarded, but you didn't have to make such a big deal out of someone ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION. I know why jails are in place, I know why people go to them, and so does everybody with half a brain. I just didn't understand the question because of how you worded it. So faith in humanity couldn't have been restored, as it was never taken away in the first place, right? I understand the question now, so don't worry about it anymore, k?

 

I'll have to respond to posts via "Edit" Button now. I've got a cap on how much I can post. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this guy. It's near school holidays so I was getting my e-smacking stick out.

 

It's all about making society stable NOW and then for the FUTURE (progress). Unfortunately some people think we can achieve this by hugging, others think we can achieve this by shooting everyone else - or by manipulating financial sectors so everyone's a slave to some extent... moving on.

 

Economy I think is a super controversial topic - from the new web-series by Peter Joseph to Hayek vs Keynes to Theoretical (algorithms/formulae) to Practical (real world job loses - wages - tax & crime) Is there a solution? Is there an answer? What's the correct information and knowledge to invest time into learning about Finance and the Economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can see your point that it's obviously a lot harder to control, and unless a country LOSES a war nobody can do much about it. Also, the Geneve Convention has actually helped a lot, it's warded people away from commiting war-crimes and punished those who have. Better than not having laws at all! If you were a victim of a war crime, wouldn't you be glad there were laws in place to punish them?

 

As for the car security, same thing again. It deters people from commiting war crimes, and even if it doesn't stop them 100% of the time, it's still good to have it there. If the Geneva Convention wasn't in place then I'm almost certain both sides of the civil war would be commiting war crimes, as there would be nothing really to stop them.

 

I know mine does. Haven't been persecuted or tortured in weeks.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sick of the Amanda Todd stuff. So....

 

CHEMTRAILS!!!!!

 

Ever watched a qantas plane flying real high with a "vapour" or "condensation" trail? Yeah, most have. Notice how the white line behind the plane dissipates a few hundred meters or sometime a km or two behind it? Have you ever noticed that sometimes the line does not dissipate and instead turns into a massive cloud? If your in Adelaide, go have a look outside. There have been about 10 full runs today, which started without a cloud in the sky and I havnt seen one roll over today. The government is spraying..... Google chemtrails for a quick rundown on what it is.

 

If you aren't joking, it depends on the conditions in which contrails (not chemtrails) are created.. google relative humidity with respect to ice (RHi) and how it can affect the behaviour of these contrails.

 

In regards to the OP tho; no she didn't deserve to be bullied and no she didn't deserve to die.. whether others have committed suicide for different reasons doesn't change this.. really is a no brainer.

 

Have you done any research on it? It's known that companies all around the world are using these chemtrails to attempt to control the weather, it is having a huge environmental impact due to the nature of the particles they are dropping. Not to mention messing with the weather cycles.

 

Whether or not you beleive it's to control the population, you can't deny it's happening all over the world.

either looking too much into my post or not enough into his. I was pretty much specifically replying to the underlying claim that (commercial?) planes leaving trails that don't dissipate = reason to believe govt is spraying the population etc etc.

 

As for the claim companies are using chemtrails to control the weather, i'm going to assume you are referring to cloud seeding. I don't doubt the existence of this practice or that is proven under any and all circumstances to be a 100% safe one, but the claim 'it is having a huge environmental impact due to the nature of the particles they are dropping. Not to mention messing with the weather cycles.' seems unsubstantiated. Which sources did you get this from? Many studies have been conducted which aimed to find the effectiveness of cloud seeding, as well as the long term environmental impacts from altering rainfall patterns and the use of silver iodide etc, though it seems most of this can be disputed and a lot was left uncertain.

If you are interested in the subject, the Snowy Precipitation Enhancement Research Project (SPERP) is worth investing some time reading about. It is a study that arguable shows for the first time (with backing scientific data) that cloud seeding is a viable practice with no adverse environmental affects detected.

http://www.snowyhydr.../cloud-seeding/

http://www.nrc.nsw.g...oudseeding.aspx

 

Edit:

It is also highly unlikely that any commercial plane you see in the sky leaving a trail behind it is actually leaving a chemtrail.

Highly unlikely to the point where it's pretty safe to say it isn't a chemtrail at all but a contrail.

Edited by shiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also highly unlikely that any commercial plane you see in the sky leaving a trail behind it is actually leaving a chemtrail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×