Bitcoin Forum

How many wars do we need to go through before the American people realize that we have a gov't gone mad?  When will we realize that special interests are controlling this country, namely the banksters and military industrial complex?

Ask yourselves what have we accomplished in the wars of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and potentially now Syria?  The first 3 are in utter chaos with the violence and killing even more extreme than ever.

A "surgical" pinprick consisting of cruise missile strikes in Syria is naive at best and terribly dangerous at worst.  We risk a much wider boots on the ground confrontation that the Obama Administration refuses to even consider.

What does this have to do with Bitcoin?  Everything.  Without control of the printing press, our gov't would be incapable of carrying out such "exceptionalism".

http://www.acting-man.com/?p=25931

Make sure you view the video of Congressman Alan Grayson.

growing up in the 70's and 80's i find it mind blowing that im actually rooting for the russian government as opposed to our own.  And to a KGB man no less.  If you had told me that in 1985 i'd have said you were crazy.  but kudos to russia for (so far) not giving snowden to our overlords and trying to be the voice of reason when it comes to syria and potentially starting world war 3.  Fortunately more and more people in the us are realizing that we live in an oppresive police state and that regardless of political party in power we have no say in our politics.  whether anything will change i suppose only time will tell.  For sure bitcoins could help us make the change back to an accountable/responsible government.  Whether that happens or they just turn into one more thing for them to tax is yet to be seen.

Are you fucking stupid?
Pardon my french, but seriously? Syria is attacking it's own citizens with chemical weapons!
I am from Germany and I can assure you that Putin is NOT acting more democratic (presidential) than Obama in any way, that statement is just plain stupid and wrong. Russia is an ally of Syria and is afraid of it's investments going down the drain.
Next time please read up a little before posting stupid comments like that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations#Economic_relations
And just fyi: Europe is flooded with syrian children who lost their parents in governement attacks against their own population!

maybe you should visit russia - where there is no police state at all! your voice will be heard, your opinions matter and you are free to voice it wherever you like! where there is no opression, free democratic presidential elections are held and the opposition is a valued part of the government!

....

so do you actually think that sending in a bunch of cruise missiles to bomb as yet unspecified targets, while at the same time promising no further escalation of military action, will seriously do anything other than cause a worsening of the situation?

I think doing nothing and letting civilians die in vain is worse. yeah. It is pretty easy to condemn your governemnt for trying to stop the slaughter with a few airstrikes and "praising" Russia for it's intervention, but the fact remains that chemical weapons count as warcrimes and are punishable by death. Even in Germany, and we don't have a death penalty under normal circumstances. The only reason why Germany has not taken any sides right now is because we are allied with both Russia and the US. But you can be sure that Putins statement was not his own but a direct reaction to European intervention...

I think you can point to plenty of evil on both sides, and I'm certainly not looking at Russia as in the running for a society that most would want to live in. But I do agree that Putin played the Syria hand perfectly, and came out of this one smelling like a rose.

And of course, Russia would not hand over Snowden; why on earth would they? There is no way that the US would hand over a Russian or Chinese dissident if the situation were reversed, so the hypocrisy of acting like this is a point of contention is a joke. Since I think Snowden is pretty much a hero worldwide (and to a lot of Americans) for showing how fucked US intelligence has become, Russia probably earns more respect allowing Snowden to stay than giving him back to the U.S.

did you read the article i linked to?  seems we have a different set of facts.

there is significant intelligence that believes it was the rebels themselves who used the chem weapons.  the timing is highly suspicious as well as the attack occurred right when the inspectors landed in Syria.  doesn't make alot of sense for the gov't to have done it then.

also, sending in cruise missiles to weaken the Syrian forces that control the govt's chem weapons doesn't make alot of sense either in that this will make it easier for the rebels to get control of the chems.  and just who are the rebels anyway?  sounds like a bunch of anti-US thugs to begin with.  what exactly does the US stand to gain other than an all out war that we'll then have to intervene in with our own sons and daughters?

the US has nothing to gain by interfering in Syria other than some self perceived moral authority or "exceptionalism" which given the results of the past interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya has been an utter failure.

here in the states police agencies routinely use cs gas to disperse protesters.  which i do believe are chemical weapons. its not as deadly as sarin gas, but it does kill people.  I don't understand where launching cruise missiles at a country is the moral high ground.  The big picture is that it could spark an attack on israel which will escalate the violence thoughout the entire world as everyone chooses sides. It could be an archduke ferdinand moment.  but mainly my concern is that i can't even drive to the grocery store without the government taking my picture 6 times. Or i can't fly on an airplane without letting a stranger look at my scrotum.  I feel for the syrian people, because both sides seem like dr. evil fighting dr. doom.  But war begets war regardless and i can't support it in any fashion.

Chemical yes - Chemical weapons no.
http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/
here you find a detailed description.

I did. And it is pretty much utter BS. The Us intelligence is not the only one who found the evidence and it is pretty clear that government troops used them, not rebels. Some rebel groups are indeed anti west/us - but so what? Just because they don't like us does not mean that we should not help the civilians.

And of course can the US intervene because of their moral authority. It may be not in your interest, but maybe the people being killed there will be very happy that they actually live.
And of course, if murica had not intervened in ww2 because of their "moral authority" Europe and Africa would now speak German... So bad for us, I know. We all hate you americans for that. How could you intervene in our cute little struggle here in Europe...

Grayson makes a great point.  

why do we not help the 30% homeless, the direct result of war, by sending in food and medical supplies instead?

or is there a different agenda by the sending in of cruise missiles at the cost of $1.5M per Tomahawk?

http://www.vice.com/read/how-much-will-the-defense-industry-make-off-of-a-missile-strike-against-syria

That case has not been made convincingly on an international level, at the U.N. unlike the U.S. presentation of Iraq WMD, I might add.

Why was all this emotion missing for the Rwandan Genocide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) in 1994 where the death toll was estimated to be 500,000 to 1,000,000?

Even Secretary General Kofi Annan said "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret."

For some reason the U.S. only gets unshakeable humanitarian concern and (hypocritical) moral uprightness when events take place in the oil rich Middle East  ::)

"we"?

i thought you said you're from Germany.  my, how easy was that?  are you Syrian?

A Democratic President is figuring out how the world works.

then let germany send its children to die. Fuck you!

To quote myself: Some rebel groups are indeed anti west/us - but so what? Just because they don't like us does not mean that we should not help the civilians.

How could you misunderstand that? Or is Germany not part of the West in your opinion? Please elaborate further. On second thought, please don't. You sound like a republican. (We germans find you funny because you stand for all that is wrong with the US ;))

Seriously?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Auslandseins%C3%A4tze_der_Bundeswehr.svg/900px-Auslandseins%C3%A4tze_der_Bundeswehr.svg.png

Please remember that Germany has a standing military for peacekeeping and has not actively fought a war since ww2. German soldiers still die in conflicts all over the world. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesf%C3%A4lle_bei_Auslandseins%C3%A4tzen_der_Bundeswehr#Einzelne_F.C3.A4lle

i actually understand you perfectly.

you send in the cruise missiles.

If I had any I would personally send them up his ass. So let's make this clear: You don't want to send troops in (I can realte, human lives and stuff) but at the same time you don't like the fact that they could use missiles because they cost to much? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US on top of the worlds defense budget? Isn't your weapons industry one of the mayor exporteurs and isn't that one of the foundations of your economy? What do you do with the stuff if not use it? Put it in your foregarden and try to raise tulips around it?

I think you don't have your facts about Syria staight and just want to let off some steam, but we in Europe have to welcome the people who want asylum and we hear their stories. Believe me when I tell you that it should be the duty of every Country who can to help those people. And not only with food and shelter in the country itself like your strange Congressman said, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

uh huh.  sure you would.  with that kinda attitude i have to ask if you've even taken a few minutes to think about the implications of this whole thing?

oh great.  so since we have them, lets use them.  they're getting dusty. ::)

then like i said, do your duty and do it.  you're closer anyways.  and you guys owe us for not occupying you after WW2.

Usa should bomb them and steal their oil so I can buy cheaper gas for my Porsche.

If they had nothing to gain they wouldn't be interfering. They even have something to lose (peoples' support) because many people are against them interfering in Syria.

Please take time to read this and you should understand:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts

All US Presidents are puppets. They cannot act on their own will or they will die.

It says "Putin is playing politics"

It would behoove you to have an attention span that lasts longer than a few weeks.

It says they both have another agenda, for the US a war in Syria is more profitable in the future and for Russia it's not.

They both really don't give a crap about the Syrian people.

The only reason Obama want to attack Syria is that they have oil. Why don't US attack Congo? Or other country which have longer civil war?

Come on, Putin fight with bear all the time. Obama only fight with other politician.  :)

As tinfoil-hat as this sounds, it is a hypothesis with remarkable explanatory power.

At this point I would consider it a positive attribute if a candidate for POTUS had no family and few belongings.  Or a lot of financial resources and a demonstrated ability to deploy them defensively in a hostile environment.