Syria

[Piotr]

There was a movie leaked a couple of years ago showing how American helicopters are killing civilians in Iraq.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=iraq%20apache%20video&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5rXPrfnU3G0&ei=AAcjUpD-LYenhAf1u4CQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFh-RF47VE7G7WNH8TjQsJ2lNByIQ&sig2=BzcpGL79-YjWaMD_ZcpE6w&bvm=bv.51495398,d.ZG4

Do you know how many civilians were killed in Iraq by Americans and their allies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

You are killing people to protect them from oppressive government. Lets kill them so they don't have to suffer, right :p

[FlickerYourOwnIdentity]

My teacher pointed out how we aren't looking at Syria, but instead looking at things like...

Miley Cyrus who is everywhere.

She even said Miley Cyrus was a way to keep the public distracted from Syria, a program put forth by the government.


She was kidding but we laughed.  Then she blasted Uprising from these big speakers in her classroom.

[Dudecore]

I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.

Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?

My teacher pointed out how we aren't looking at Syria, but instead looking at things like...

Miley Cyrus who is everywhere.

She even said Miley Cyrus was a way to keep the public distracted from Syria, a program put forth by the government.


She was kidding but we laughed.  Then she blasted Uprising from these big speakers in her classroom.

Every society gets the news they deserve. If people didnt want to hear about Miley Cyrus - don't watch, tell your friends to not watch, they'll stop bringing it up. Corporations like money much more then they do Miley Cyrus.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.

Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?

I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

[Dudecore]

I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.

Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?

I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

I meant the outcome more then anything, not the population or potential targets. Accepting that you have to kill innocent people makes you an aggressor. You've forfeited your own humanity as well, you should volunteer to die in those people's place. If you'd be unwilling to do so for the greater good - I'd suggest you not be so quick to see aggression as a solution.

Edit: if anything that article proves to highlight the selective bias of some folks. North Korea has starved millions of their own people, given an awful, painful, miserable death. Labor camps and malnutrition have ravaged their region. We've yet to consider strategic bombings, peace talks are ongoing.

[Piotr]

I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.

Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?

I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Do not lie. "But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods."

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.

Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?

I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Do not lie. "But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods."

Oops, didn't see that Taysby said "than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons." I though he was talking about the number of deaths in general. Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.

[Piotr]

I know it's not the best option, but killing 10000 civialns in a war to stop chemical weapons and such is better than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons.

Where are we deriving these numbers from? You've seen the future? What is it like?

I thought the numbers were A LOT lower too but Taysby's stat is correct:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/even-after-100000-deaths-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-evoked-visceral-response/2013/08/31/de6c2b3e-1277-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Do not lie. "But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods."

Oops, didn't see that Taysby said "than the government killing 1000000ish with those weapons." I though he was talking about the number of deaths in general. Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.

No worries, I'm not sure what Taysby really meant, just a friendly reminder

[Piotr]

What I ment was that if chemical weapons didnt stop more people would die than if they were being used.  I guesstimated the numbers.

This line of thought is impossible to prove thus cannot be used to prove anything. We cannot know the future, according to current physics.

[Dudecore]

What I ment was that if chemical weapons didnt stop more people would die than if they were being used.  I guesstimated the numbers.

This line of thought is impossible to prove thus cannot be used to prove anything. We cannot know the future, according to current physics.

Truth bomb.

[Dudecore]

It is the role of the citizens to revolt against their oppressors. They will not win without the military on their side (proof: every coup ever). It's the fault of anyone who allows another entity to claim dominion over man. They have not derived their power from anything other then their monopoly on the use of force.

Ruthless aggression (like the type used by governments) will be met with bloodshed. It's an unfortunate reality. The United States has no business using aggression to solve aggression.