AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busines

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.

They have a military budget of 4.572 billion dollars, and the US has a military budget of over 500 billion dollars. I have no idea why you constantly think any country can avoid getting squished if we are not trying to avoid civilian casualties.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Shaun__ said:
Red7227 said:
I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.

They have a military budget of 4.572 billion dollars, and the US has a military budget of over 500 billion dollars. I have no idea why you constantly think any country can avoid getting squished if we are not trying to avoid civilian casualties.

Then why didn't the US commit ground troops in Kosovo? Fear of getting their ass handed to them is what drives US foreign policy. They can bully countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea, Burma and Serbia had nothing to fear.

Boce, seriously, look into the F35 Lighting II program. It is such a ridiculous waste of money that even Regan's "starwars" program is looking sensible in comparison.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
[
Then why didn't the US commit ground troops in Kosovo? Fear of getting their ass handed to them is what drives US foreign policy. They can bully countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea, Burma and Serbia had nothing to fear.

You are somehow qualified in war to know when or not to commit ground troops??

???
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Bocefish said:
Red7227 said:
[
Then why didn't the US commit ground troops in Kosovo? Fear of getting their ass handed to them is what drives US foreign policy. They can bully countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea, Burma and Serbia had nothing to fear.

You are somehow qualified in war to know when or not to commit ground troops??

???


Yep.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
Shaun__ said:
Red7227 said:
I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.

They have a military budget of 4.572 billion dollars, and the US has a military budget of over 500 billion dollars. I have no idea why you constantly think any country can avoid getting squished if we are not trying to avoid civilian casualties.

Then why didn't the US commit ground troops in Kosovo? Fear of getting their ass handed to them is what drives US foreign policy. They can bully countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea, Burma and Serbia had nothing to fear.
Dunno that anyone should be criticising anyone for NOT putting troops into a foreign nation.

The US learned from Kosovo that bomb strikes can have civillian casualties and negative publicity, with limited verifiable effect on the enemy. They learned from Iraq what they learned and apparently forgot in Vietnam, and the Russians learned in Afghanistan - put troops on the ground in a foreign nation, fighting locals you will get fucked up by guerilla warfare.

Hopefully these recent lessons will make them more cautious dealing with Syria and future conflicts. Hell, the fact not all politicians are yelling to go in guns blazing is itself valuable progress.

Big problem: US presidents need to not make 'red lines' that they're loathe to enforce. Frankly I think the US is going to come out looking like shit no matter what happens - cos Obama said 'no more', al-Assad called him on it, and now the US *HAS* to make a response of some kind or they look powerless, but any response they make could ignite a powder keg in the region and who the fuck knows - is this how WW3 starts?
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
Bocefish said:
Red7227 said:
[
Then why didn't the US commit ground troops in Kosovo? Fear of getting their ass handed to them is what drives US foreign policy. They can bully countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea, Burma and Serbia had nothing to fear.

You are somehow qualified in war to know when or not to commit ground troops??

???


Yep.

Then go lead your own and quit whining about the USA.

Where has your leadership shined?
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Jupiter551 said:
Big problem: US presidents need to not make 'red lines' that they're loathe to enforce. Frankly I think the US is going to come out looking like shit no matter what happens - cos Obama said 'no more', al-Assad called him on it, and now the US *HAS* to make a response of some kind or they look powerless, but any response they make could ignite a powder keg in the region and who the fuck knows - is this how WW3 starts?

Nah, the French and German leaders are ignoring everything but their own problems, plus Russian has major leverage with both countries though investment and controlling natural gas supplies. While the US has been waiving its dick and printing money to cover their military expenditure for the last 20 years, the Russians have been quietly supporting its neighbours and making connections. Putin is back and the douchbag everybody expected the second time around, but he is a know quantity and easy to deal with.

If the US dollar loses its status as the world currency, the US is fucked, and the point is approaching that the pain of a change is going to be less than the pain of putting up with US grandstanding. Already some countries dealing with China are doing so directly in each other's currencies. When the relevance of the US dollar in the marketplace is sufficiently low a switch to another currency is likely.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
Shaun__ said:
Red7227 said:
I don't remember the US invading South Africa, that's right, they have an active military so a gutless bully like the US wouldn't risk it.

They have a military budget of 4.572 billion dollars, and the US has a military budget of over 500 billion dollars. I have no idea why you constantly think any country can avoid getting squished if we are not trying to avoid civilian casualties.

Then why didn't the US commit ground troops in Kosovo? Fear of getting their ass handed to them is what drives US foreign policy. They can bully countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea, Burma and Serbia had nothing to fear.

Ground forces are used to hold ground, and preform surgical strikes. We seldom even really care about the people our government claims to be "liberating", most of that stuff is really proxy wars.

North Korea is just crazy, and China is the only reason they are still existing. Also nobody wants to deal with the starving huddled masses that would flee North Korea if a bad war took place. Everybody just ignores them for the most part, to avoid dealing with them.

Burma has relations with the US, Obama and Hillary have both put their feet on the ground there. That counts as ground forces doesn't it, or are you mad we did not drop billions of gallons of Agent Orange on their country too?

Serbia is a member of NATO's The Partnership for Peace. I do not see why we need to invade them with ground forces.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
Shaun__ said:
Serbia is a member of NATO's The Partnership for Peace. I do not see why we need to invade them with ground forces.

so its ok to bomb them, just not invade them.

They are an ally, we are not bombing them. We won.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HiGirlsRHot
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Shaun__ said:
Red7227 said:
Shaun__ said:
Serbia is a member of NATO's The Partnership for Peace. I do not see why we need to invade them with ground forces.

so its ok to bomb them, just not invade them.

They are an ally, we are not bombing them. We won.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Red7227 said:
Nordling said:

Yep, close enough. Now we just wait for the inspectors to work out who is using chemical weapons.

Red, I've come to the conclusion you have not a fucking clue about nearly anything you've commented upon in this thread.

If you even had a clue, you would know the UN Weapons Inspectors mandate is not to identify who used chemical weapons, only if they have been used.

But I guess arm chair politics without even bothering to do any research into the subject is the norm of the internet keyboard warrior. Uninformed, but loaded with opinion.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

I can't do it anymore! Damnit red!

*So, what are the chances of the west minding its own business?

ARE, because it's "chances", which is a multiple.

Yes, I do feel better now.

(I'm assuming here that business got cut off by a character limit, but you could always take off the "So, " part to get it correct if that is true. In which case, you would even have one character left to add the "?" at the end!)
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

zippypinhead said:
I think an issue is that the regional actors who want the West to intervene don't want the US to stop at a slap on the wrist - they don't want a missile strike, or a surgical strike, they want al-Assad removed and that is FAR from simple, and is probably FAR from what the US is willing to do considering recent history.
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

LadyLuna said:
I can't do it anymore! Damnit red!

*So, what are the chances of the west minding its own business?

ARE, because it's "chances", which is a multiple.

Yes, I do feel better now.

(I'm assuming here that business got cut off by a character limit, but you could always take off the "So, " part to get it correct if that is true. In which case, you would even have one character left to add the "?" at the end!)


I apologise for any grammatical trauma you might have suffered, it was unintentional. In my old age I find that what I think I'm typing often has no relationship to what is actually being typed :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began

FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.

Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.

He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.

“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.

“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?

“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”

The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.

“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.

“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.

“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.

“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.

“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”

Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.

The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.

The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.

Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.

“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it
its toxic properties.

“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.

“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.

“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.

“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”

Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.

UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.

They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.

It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.

On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.

Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.

Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.

But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.

He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.

Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”

He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.

“And I’m prepared to give that order.”

Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.

General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.

He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.

from http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... as-2242520

And here I was thinking the Syrian regime probably got it, and if they got it, from Russia or China. "The plot thickens".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red7227 and schlmoe
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

MrRodry said:
from http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... as-2242520

And here I was thinking the Syrian regime probably got it, and if they got it, from Russia or China. "The plot thickens".

I hate to fan the "conspiracy theory " flames, but now the UK Parliament vote makes perfect sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrRodry and Red7227
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

MrRodry said:
And here I was thinking the Syrian regime probably got it, and if they got it, from Russia or China. "The plot thickens".

Sarin is quite easy to make, its basically a slightly modified pesticide and can be made be made on pesticide machinery. A very similar preservative is used in some pharmaceuticals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Unlike nuclear weapons, possession of chemical and biological weapons have been banned since since 1972. They were used in the first world war but use was banned afterwards, with the ban on possession coming in 1972. Easy to make and very effective, they were used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, Saddam and now by the Syrians, though some of the usage claims are that the insurgents in Syria have used them against the army. Makes no difference to the US stance though, as Syria must have possessed the chemicals for the insurgents to capture and use. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/wea ... eapons.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrRodry
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

It can be argued that the United States was complicit and facilitated the use chemical weapons during the 80's to help Iraq against Iran.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
Iraq was not party to the convention that made the use of chemical weapons in 1988 a war crime, but the United States was. The United States did not exert every effort to induce Iraq to accede to the agreement. The United States did, in fact, knowingly enable Iraq to violate the agreement.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...retend-to-care-about-use-of-chemical-weapons#

http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-iran-iraq-980/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red7227
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Just Me said:
It can be argued that the United States was complicit and facilitated the use chemical weapons during the 80's to help Iraq against Iran.

Yep, they warned Saddam that they would need to eventually take a stand against Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
 
Re: So, what is the chances of the west minding its own busi

Bocefish said:
Big problem: US presidents need to not make 'red lines' that they're loathe to enforce.

Obama, once again... proves he has no respect in his leadership.

Update from Sweden: “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line."

I can't even stand to watch him speak anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.