←  The Lounge

Doghouse Boxing - Dog Pound

»

Russia Accuses Britain Of Chemical Attack...

Jack Tripper's Photo Jack Tripper 14 Apr 2018

 boxalettice, on 14 April 2018 - 01:01 AM, said:

Yes he is
Yeah, got that one wrong.
Quote

boxalettice 's Photo boxalettice 14 Apr 2018

 Jack Tripper, on 14 April 2018 - 01:15 AM, said:

Yeah, got that one wrong.
So who's behind this? Maybe Ronald McDonald
Quote

rayajr's Photo rayajr 14 Apr 2018

 Johnny Hopper, on 13 April 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:



What has Trump blamed Obama for?

Obama's first year, it was constantly complaining about Bush. I don't hear that from Trump.


It's because he's a man son. You should try it.
Lol. Is this a post from the twilight zone? I bet if I walk outside I'll be the only man alive. You're really out there now bro.
Quote

ATLien's Photo ATLien 14 Apr 2018

So this dropping bombs on Syrian targets.  Did Trump do a good thing here?  The words he read on the matter were pretty solid, but I'm not sure what his real plans are considering the US was supposed to be getting the hell up outta there a few days ago according to him..

Quote

Jack Tripper's Photo Jack Tripper 14 Apr 2018

Don’t trip guys, Trump said “mission accomplished”. Just awaiting the photo op on an aircraft carrier with his quote on a banner in the background.
Quote

jimbag's Photo jimbag 14 Apr 2018

I don't know how to respond. I don't like Assad, but I don't like regime change, either. Trump says it's not about regime change, but if I cut down my neighbor's tree I doubt he'll believe me when I tell him it's not about horticulture.

Honestly, I wonder if everybody should just pull right the fuck out of the region and let them all just self-determine. The West has oil, and the demand for figs doesn't justify military strikes.

Even chemical weapons, yeah, they're horrible. But they aren't any more efficient or any less discriminating about who they kill than bombs or missiles. Even so-called surgical strikes, like this one, produce civilian casualties.

So another Trump flip flop, which means another Hooper flip flop, I'm sure.

But here's a chance to prove the theory that Reagan bankrupted the Soviets. Turn Putin and Assad into complete economic pariahs. Let's see if they come around.
Quote

bazooka's Photo bazooka 14 Apr 2018

Seems ridiculous to bomb them.  I'm not even convinced that Assad gassed anyone. Sounds like BS to me.
Quote

Jack Tripper's Photo Jack Tripper 14 Apr 2018

 Johnny Hopper, on 13 April 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:


Horsehead told us that 100% of chemical weapons had been accounted for and removed. No matter who used these weapons, that makes him a lying sack of shit.
Is chlorine hard to make or obtain?
Quote

boxalettice 's Photo boxalettice 14 Apr 2018

 ATLien, on 14 April 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

So this dropping bombs on Syrian targets.  Did Trump do a good thing here?  The words he read on the matter were pretty solid, but I'm not sure what his real plans are considering the US was supposed to be getting the hell up outta there a few days ago according to him..


Endless Proxy Wars is the agenda obviously
Quote

WhenWeWereKings's Photo WhenWeWereKings 14 Apr 2018

 jimbag, on 14 April 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

I don't know how to respond. I don't like Assad, but I don't like regime change, either. Trump says it's not about regime change, but if I cut down my neighbor's tree I doubt he'll believe me when I tell him it's not about horticulture.

Honestly, I wonder if everybody should just pull right the fuck out of the region and let them all just self-determine. The West has oil, and the demand for figs doesn't justify military strikes.

Even chemical weapons, yeah, they're horrible. But they aren't any more efficient or any less discriminating about who they kill than bombs or missiles. Even so-called surgical strikes, like this one, produce civilian casualties.

So another Trump flip flop, which means another Hooper flip flop, I'm sure.

But here's a chance to prove the theory that Reagan bankrupted the Soviets. Turn Putin and Assad into complete economic pariahs. Let's see if they come around.
:lol: @ demand for figs. I literally laughed out loud at that.
Quote

jimbag's Photo jimbag 14 Apr 2018

Trudeau supports the air strike. So I better get behind it too. Can't break with party line, right? Unless you're capable of independent thought.

Like I said earlier, I do not support interfering in any country's internecine fight. Period. I could certainly support acting in the case of genocide, but not in a civil war.

When has this ever paid off? Reagan committed treason to support the Contras, was that a win? Is Vietnam Democratic now?

The South tried to get support for their side in the civil war. Obviously they didn't get it, I doubt intervention would have shortened the war, and things played out accordingly. What you have now is the same thing in Syria, just with General Robert Ali heading up the rebels.

I don't know anything about the rebels' cause. You don't hear much about them here. But if Assad needs Russia's help to prop up his regime, I have to believe he is in real danger of being overthrown. And if that's the case, then the rebels must have a lot of popular support there. Which makes military intervention no different than interfering in a democratic election. Other than the obvious bloodshed.

I may be in danger of sounding callous as fuck here, if it seems like I want to stand by and allow the use of chemical weapons. But when outside forces get involved it just seems to guarantee the wars last longer and more people end up dying.
Quote

Sugar_Dean_Cuntly's Photo Sugar_Dean_Cuntly 14 Apr 2018

It's literally pointless. Assad has already won so it achieves nothing.
Quote

Bondok's Photo Bondok 14 Apr 2018

Fake news. Those videos are from 2015.
Quote

ATLien's Photo ATLien 15 Apr 2018

So, the atrocity isn't that civilians and families are senselessly being killed but which manner is acceptable to kill them.  Droppin some bomb azz bombs on folks and blowing them to smithereens is cool, giving the gas face to people as a means to kill some folks that more than likely were going to get killed one way or another is where the line must be drawn?  Just seems the gas just take a little less effort to inflict mass casualties, and I guess that's where the issue lies I suppose.
Quote

bazooka's Photo bazooka 16 Apr 2018

 ATLien, on 15 April 2018 - 02:25 PM, said:

So, other the atrocity isn't that civilians and families are senselessly being killed but which manner is acceptable to kill them.  Droppin some bomb azz bombs on folks and blowing them to smithereens is cool, giving the gas face to people as a means to kill some folks that more than likely were going to get killed one way or another is where the line must be drawn?  Just seems the gas just take a little less effort to inflict mass casualties, and I guess that's where the issue lies I suppose.
yeah i've thought that as well.  Countering the use of a bit of gas (that still isn't 100% confirmed IMO) with bombs, that most certainly have a lot of collateral damage as well.  Its fucking redundant.
Quote