News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

US Military to Syria

Started by WitchSabrina, June 14, 2013, 07:23:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Skeletal Atheist

Our involvement and policies in the Middle East is like some deranged guy sticking his dick in a beehive, getting stung badly, then furiously fucking the beehive while standing on an anthill and wondering why it hurts.

What benefit have we seen from dealing with this shit? If one wants to say it's about oil or money...well it's done a fat lot of good for us. Billions of dollars spent on various clusterfucks and nothing to say for our investments.

If we're doing it for humanitarian reasons (hint: we're not), then we sure fucked up. The result of that seems to be a greater radicalization of an already radicalized area, as well as spreading the shit worldwide via refugees and the like.

Getting involved with Syria, like getting involved in any other country in that region, is just going to result in a loss of lives, money, and fuck our international reputation more than it already is. And how long until they use the weapons we give them to raid one of our embassies.

Besides, why should I support helping people who would gladly kill me if they had the chance? Say we support the rebels, and they win. I decide to take a vacation to the now "free" Syria, then someone discovers that I'm a homosexual and an atheist. What the hell would happen? I'm guessing I'd either be shot, stoned, or beheaded.

In short, FUCK!
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Shiranu

To be fair, I don't think its the U.S.'s place either; the U.N. needs to be given some teeth and not be able to be stagnated by the actions of one or two nations in regards to intervening in human rights violations.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Jason Harvestdancer

Since Obama has decided that the US should arm the rebels, a few questions come to mind.

Is he performing background checks on the rebels?
Is he limiting the magazine sizes?
Is he making sure they're not getting any "assault weapons"?
Is he enacting a waiting period?
Is he limiting them to only one gun per month?
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

pr126

Syrians massacring each other in large numbers.

Obama: Give them more weapons.  :-k

SGOS

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"What benefit have we seen from dealing with this shit? If one wants to say it's about oil or money...well it's done a fat lot of good for us.
We don't know the motivations of our government.  Mostly we believe what they tell us, because we don't have access to accurate information, and our "free" press is mostly just a propaganda outlet.  I remember a friend saying, "If it's about insuring a cheap source of oil, then I'm all for invading Iraq."  I've heard our leaders talk about the fear of a destabilized Mideast, like our involvement there somehow stabilizes it (and insures a flow of cheap oil).

But first how do you weigh the dollar amount of war against the savings from cheaper oil?  And why has the price of gas more than doubled since we invaded Iraq?  And why does the Mideast seem less stable now than before the invasion?

Another friend speculated that the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was to push the price of oil higher, a "theory" that first set me back on my heels, yet a theory that does adequately explain the results.  

In fact, prior to the invasion, we were told that Saddam was dumping cheap oil into France and Germany, against UN sanctions, an action that would have tended to lower prices on the world market. Although that's was probably a minor setback to higher oil prices.

The bottom line is that expensive gas hurts most people.  However, as one oil executive pointed out to me around 2006, "We are making so much money in oil right now, it boggles the mind."

But we have to wonder, "Would our government do something that would work so clearly work against the interests of the electorate, while benefiting a small number of our wealthy elite?"  We might reject this thought because it sounds so offensively unethical, but we are talking about our government, not an ethical paragon of virtue.

The bottom line is that we can never know our leaders motivations, but we can identify major beneficiaries from the Iraq War as the oil industry and Halliburton.  The rest of us were overall losers.  But the Bush Administration would never have been so self serving, right?

Colanth

Quote from: "SGOS"But we have to wonder, "Would our government do something that would work so clearly work against the interests of the electorate, while benefiting a small number of our wealthy elite?"
Who pumps billions of dollars into political campaigns, the guy standing at the pump buying gas, or the guy running the company that refines that gas?  Tough decision which one to tilt government policy toward.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

WitchSabrina

Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"What benefit have we seen from dealing with this shit? If one wants to say it's about oil or money...well it's done a fat lot of good for us.
We don't know the motivations of our government.  Mostly we believe what they tell us, because we don't have access to accurate information, and our "free" press is mostly just a propaganda outlet.  I remember a friend saying, "If it's about insuring a cheap source of oil, then I'm all for invading Iraq."  I've heard our leaders talk about the fear of a destabilized Mideast, like our involvement there somehow stabilizes it (and insures a flow of cheap oil).

But first how do you weigh the dollar amount of war against the savings from cheaper oil?  And why has the price of gas more than doubled since we invaded Iraq?  And why does the Mideast seem less stable now than before the invasion?

Another friend speculated that the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was to push the price of oil higher, a "theory" that first set me back on my heels, yet a theory that does adequately explain the results.  

In fact, prior to the invasion, we were told that Saddam was dumping cheap oil into France and Germany, against UN sanctions, an action that would have tended to lower prices on the world market. Although that's was probably a minor setback to higher oil prices.

The bottom line is that expensive gas hurts most people.  However, as one oil executive pointed out to me around 2006, "We are making so much money in oil right now, it boggles the mind."

But we have to wonder, "Would our government do something that would work so clearly work against the interests of the electorate, while benefiting a small number of our wealthy elite?"  We might reject this thought because it sounds so offensively unethical, but we are talking about our government, not an ethical paragon of virtue.

The bottom line is that we can never know our leaders motivations, but we can identify major beneficiaries from the Iraq War as the oil industry and Halliburton.  The rest of us were overall losers.  But the Bush Administration would never have been so self serving, right?

Damn good post  =D>  =D>  =D>
Thank you!
I am currently experiencing life at several WTFs per hour.