I came to this site to play a board game, not read every memo and watch every video some crazy libertarian guy keeps throwing at me.

Ciao.

And yes, I support military action (if necessary) against any regime that illegally uses chemical weapons on its own citizens. Sue me.

I should sue you, for the medical bills of all those killed in that horrid civil war.

I came to this site to play a board game, not read every memo and watch every video some crazy libertarian guy keeps throwing at me.

So when presented with evidence that Clinton and the support of opposition to Assad opened the door for ISIS, you decide now is the time to retreat? Go to a foxhole in Syria, and don't come back.

Also, since you're for overthrowing a government when it uses chemical weapons, when are you going to march on Washington because of depleted uranium bombs and rounds?

And yes, I support military action (if necessary) against any regime that illegally uses chemical weapons on its own citizens. Sue me.

That's rather naive of you. Assad might be at the head of a brutal regime, but right now he's one of the best weapons against ISIS. Sure, he might be bad, but the alternative is more beheadings and radicalism in the Middle East.

Fighting against Assad is not mutually exclusive with fighting against ISIS.

I agree that ISIS makes for extenuating circumstances now (although imho we'd accomplish more by backing the Kurdistan movement and letting Assad get ousted); I was referring to the situation back when Assad had just crossed the "red line" and we did nothing.

The alternative here is legitimizing the use of chemical weapons against civilians. We either enforce international law (ideally through proper channels) or all of it moves toward nonexistence.

Edited 8/3/2016 05:33:36

https://www.rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/

When are you taking Washington?

Sue the US in the ICJ. Iraq was very clearly an illegal invasion.

Direct military action needs to be saved for the most severe circumstances. Afghanistan made sense; Iraq didn't.

Edited 8/3/2016 05:37:31

ISIS isn't going to go away.

Afghanistan made sense

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

Edited 8/3/2016 10:05:48

MGSB is spittin' fire yo!

lol knyte I hate MGSB's wacky policies as much as the other guy but you are getting rekt rly badly

^ If we did that radiations would spread to Balkans an- ...oh i forgot, albanians are muslim satanist vampires so that wouldn't effect them.

Edited 8/3/2016 12:50:51

+1 General PE

You and I are muslims so we can't go to hell my muslim brother.

Go to hell Mongol.

Mongol... theres no Mongolian on this thread...

lolwat

Edited 8/3/2016 19:44:13

Why are all of Adrijan's posts removed yet vengence's are fine

I was just about to ignore this post but then I decided to read what MGSB master plan to defeat ISIS was. Would it be getting rid of all governments in the world so ISIS would magically disappear because even terrorists love ancap? Would it be talking pointlessly about history missing lots of facts and blaming at the end countries actions while mysteriously forgetting to mention the leaders that are responsible for that and instead doubling down on why the US are evil by nature just like every other nation in the world but not their leadership? Or is it knock the crap out of ISIS with a worldwide coalition of sovereign states armies in order to restore peace in the region?

Surprizingly enough it's the last one. I really didn't see that comming. #LastMonthMGSBDisapproves

Would it be getting rid of all governments in the world so ISIS would magically disappear because even terrorists love ancap?

Anu Capr Al-Capital

Would it be talking pointlessly about history missing lots of facts and blaming at the end countries actions while mysteriously forgetting to mention the leaders that are responsible for that and instead doubling down on why the US are evil by nature just like every other nation in the world but not their leadership?

Well the US government is at fault here. But I've acknowledged it a hundred times already, and no one cares for factual evidence (I did prove Clinton was funding ISIS and providing them arms) so meh.

Or is it knock the crap out of ISIS with a worldwide coalition of sovereign states armies in order to restore peace in the region?

I wouldn't describe four countries as a worldwide coalition, but yes, a small offensive to destabilize ISIS and end their leadership, and capability to supply their forces effectively. States caused this problem, and they better end it.