Thread has been deleted
Last comment
USA?????
LOVEYY | 
China LOVEYY 
"AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!" - twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/37560.. And now Trump just launched 50 missiles to Syrian military bases?????? LOGIC????? bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39523654
2017-04-07 03:32
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
-syria chemically attacked some of their citizens/ rebels probably isis or some terrorist group -but rly nothing will come out of the air strikes -and russia is scared to go up against us so no world war would happen
2017-04-07 03:39
I dont think Russia is scared theyre just smart enough to know that a nuclear war with the US would likely mean the end of humanity
2017-04-07 03:42
well the war will be eu + us vs russia, syria(who arent worth shit), and mb china
2017-04-07 03:43
Who do people always assume Russia and China are a package deal? China would have nothing to gain from any war and going to war to assist Russia is just suicide/way too costly. Just because they were both socialist states in the 20th century doesn't make them buddies. China and the USSR hated eachother throughout most of the Cold War, and the Russians saw China as a bigger threat to its security than the US.
2017-04-07 05:15
#38
 | 
Reunion Malala1488 
smart guy :)
2017-04-07 05:35
#49
 | 
Canada Yoseikanben 
Son true
2017-04-07 05:57
Merci
2017-04-07 14:19
China is a bigger threat to Asia more than anything, I don't see why they wouldn't take every country in Asia one by one while the US & Russia are at war.
2017-04-07 06:04
The likelihood of a full out war between the US and Russia is very unlikely. The closest border the two nations share is over the Bering Strait but that's not an important location for either nation. If Russia was still insistent on fighting the US it would have to fight in Europe against US allies (which is dumb). Russia has nothing to gain from that since they're such a weak nation militarily and would get destroyed by NATO. The only logistically realistic war would be a nuclear one and since no one is bent on destroying the human race, I doubt we will see that. Since the likelihood of a Russian US war is slim to none, let's look at how China operates with its "soft-power". The Chinese strategy for acheining hegemony in the East is to leverage its economic power on other states and make them dependent/loyal. Although not in Asia, the Chinese has applied this strategy quite notably in Africa (for instance they are building the African Union Headquarters) and its given them access to good business deals. If they were to "take every country in Asia one by one", first they would lose a lot of the trade and business deals with other nations and second, (since Russian and the US won't go to war) this would just be seen as expansionism. The Chinese want to spread their economic power across the world—their soft power. Also, there are plenty of treaty organizations in Asia to prevent any Chinese expansion (US alliances with Korea, with Japan, SEATO, etc).
2017-04-07 14:18
I think you've made an opinion based on your imagination, a war these days is airstrikes with nuclear warheads, both USA & Russia also have bases where the warheads could be launched all over the planet. Until you can forward your mindset into 2017 and stop thinking wars are still primitive boots on grounds combat I can't continue this conversation with you. The only ever see boots on ground these days is when a super power bully's a weaker nation for their resources which isn't a real war, it's an invasion and occupation.
2017-04-07 14:49
My point is that a war between the US and Russia in the manner you described is extremely unlikely since both sides are afraid of a nuclear strike. Any war would likely escalate to nuclear war if either felt it to be an existential threat. You need to get your mindset into 2017.
2017-04-07 15:38
kek, people are always blaming Assad for everything without proof (ofc its possible). There is no proof at this moment. However Assad was charged on gas attacks in 2012 too but it revealed that gas attacks were made by rebels to make it look like it was Assad. But Assad aint innocent in general lol. And there is plenty of sketchy stuff about that current gas attack too. For instance they say the gas was sarin, not possible as the doctors and soldiers would have died too when helping them (there were pics them helping with bare hands, only gas masks) And Sarin kills you through skin and you cannot be in any contact with the victim even for one sec or you die. (docs and solds didnt die). Also the motives are fuckin retarded and thats the only thing that makes me think about that. Why the fuck would Assad ever use chemical weapons on rebels? They have modern technology and fine army. Its first time in long time when it looks like Assad is leading that fight and now goes apeshit like that?(leaders aint idiots even tho they might look like it). Also just the chemical weapon, OPCW inspected Syria in 2013 and found that Assad had removed all chemical weapons from his stock pile. OPCW also told that ISIS and FSA groups have obtained chemical WMD's somehow. Just remember that same the intelligence agencies that confirmed that Irak have Nukes confirmed this situtation. Rly makes u think. also U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime' Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying 'the idea is approved by Washington' Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was 'totally unacceptable' web.archive.org/web/20130130091742/daily.. (deleted dailymail news from 4yo ago) i wonder why
2017-04-07 04:30
#19
 | 
United States mcbrisket 
the u.s. probably chemically attacked Syrian citizens
2017-04-07 05:00
the logic is chemical weapons are unbelievably horrible and i hope they try and flay assad with a rusty cleaver. p.s. russia is dumb for taking sides when they could have just taken the capitalist route of selling to both sides, gas, weapons, vodka. small minded poor people.
2017-04-07 03:43
#5
gas | 
Korea kaiske10v 
russia needs cooperation with government for a pipeline from caspian to mediterranean/black sea, not just money. there is also very little real information about what assad done.
2017-04-07 03:47
and if they stayed out of their idealistic crap they would have got it from either side of the civil war that was occurring... silly commies
2017-04-07 04:27
#7
gas | 
Korea kaiske10v 
what if the war was created in the first place so israel(usa) would have a monopoly on the piplelines from caspian sea, and russia wouldnt be able to?
2017-04-07 04:28
ok conspiracy commie
2017-04-07 04:29
#9
gas | 
Korea kaiske10v 
if you dont think us/israel has interests in this then youre the conspiracy theorist
2017-04-07 04:30
obviously you have something to back up that claim from countries other than russia/syria/china disclaimer - i don't really care about any of this and won't read them if you provide any but knock yourself out
2017-04-07 04:53
#16
gas | 
Korea kaiske10v 
right from the US government wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/482..
2017-04-07 04:57
sounds good i'll get right onto reading that
2017-04-07 05:00
Also a naval base owned by the Russians there
2017-04-07 05:16
kek, people are always blaming Assad for everything without proof (ofc its possible). There is no proof at this moment. However Assad was charged on gas attacks in 2012 too but it revealed that gas attacks were made by rebels to make it look like it was Assad. But Assad aint innocent in general lol. And there is plenty of sketchy stuff about that current gas attack too. For instance they say the gas was sarin, not possible as the doctors and soldiers would have died too when helping them (there were pics them helping with bare hands, only gas masks) And Sarin kills you through skin and you cannot be in any contact with the victim even for one sec or you die. (docs and solds didnt die). Also the motives are fuckin retarded and thats the only thing that makes me think about that. Why the fuck would Assad ever use chemical weapons on rebels? They have modern technology and fine army. Its first time in long time when it looks like Assad is leading that fight and now goes apeshit like that?(leaders aint idiots even tho they might look like it). Also just the chemical weapon, OPCW inspected Syria in 2013 and found that Assad had removed all chemical weapons from his stock pile. OPCW also told that ISIS and FSA groups have obtained chemical WMD's somehow. Just remember that same the intelligence agencies that confirmed that Irak have Nukes confirmed this situtation. Rly makes u think. also U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime' Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying 'the idea is approved by Washington' Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was 'totally unacceptable' web.archive.org/web/20130130091742/daily.. (deleted dailymail news from 4yo ago) i wonder why i just copied it for you mai friend #10
2017-04-07 04:31
no one ever claimed iraq had nukes, didn't read the rest of it but with crap like that in it i'm sure it's well thought out and amazing i just like that donald trump finally has an erection without the use of viagra.
2017-04-07 04:55
Can you please shut the fuck up? There is information about everything he is talking about. "no one ever claimed iraq had nukes" George W Bush. President of the United States "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
2017-04-07 06:09
they never claimed nuclear weapons, everyone knew iraq had no nuclear arsenal. the most hussein ever had were chemical/bio weapons, all of which were handed to the u.n. before the second invasion bush was just settling the score that his daddy failed to do decades before on false pretences. here's your quote precious 'Listen, you snot-nosed little shit! I was takin' shrapnel in Khe Sanh when you were crappin' in your hands and rubbin' it on your face!' - Angelo Pappas
2017-04-07 06:24
Ignoring you now first on my list. Your baits are shit or you're retarded either way I never have to see your shit comments again.
2017-04-07 06:26
ahahahahahaha, good work child. bet you do the same when you lose at sports too
2017-04-07 06:29
but don't make the mistake assuming the opposite with equal lack of evidence. Assad has been a real scumbag to his 'own' people. i have my doubts though if the evidence now is strong enough to justify these airstrikes. btw sarin is an extremely unstable molecule that reacts very quickly and then loses its toxicity. Is why it kills so fast and why doctors and rescue workers are not effected.
2017-04-07 04:59
Yeah I'am not, as i told Assadin isnt innocent. Only statements we have heard so far are biased prolly from both sides. But anyway if countries go war and start bombing eachother with this much evidence and ''justice'' we are fucked. And nice info about sarin, i assume u know it better just by looking at ur name haha
2017-04-07 05:21
You are such a meat headed asshole. Just lul
2017-04-07 05:14
what's wrong with hedging your bets and flaying people who have no regard for human life?
2017-04-07 05:42
Comment hidden as User is in Ignored List Show Comment Nice Try.
2017-04-07 06:29
#12
 | 
United States ImFat 
Rip world
2017-04-07 04:40
#13
Snax | 
Other c.dallas 
I mean, it's been years since the start of the war in syria, the regime was in it's best shape recently, by that it means they are not pressured enough to launch chemical bombs. Notice how the media always cover whatever they want and start a propaganda anytime the shitty unfair major universal power wants to act in such way. 9/11 to afghanistan. Sadam and iraq invasion, fake chemical attack and syria Why is the world so blind and why is the powerful nations so evil and unfair.
2017-04-07 04:52
Sadam was not pressured to kill 8000 Kurds with chemical weapons, but he still did it. I'm afraid those chemical attacks are not so fake as you think.
2017-04-07 05:02
people are too honest.
2017-04-07 05:30
#21
 | 
United States aaronjustis 
tweet from almost 4 years ago???
2017-04-07 05:09
#22
 | 
United States r0seCS 
he was talking to obama and u cant just dismiss somebody's word because they said it 4 years ago. He's clearly a contradicting dipshit
2017-04-07 05:12
#23
 | 
United States aaronjustis 
The circumstances have totally changed from 4 years ago, the tweet is totally irrelevant
2017-04-07 05:13
Not really.
2017-04-07 05:15
#27
 | 
United States aaronjustis 
If you're telling me the circumstances didn't change from 4 years ago then idk...
2017-04-07 05:16
well.. things always change of course. but the geopolitical situation only became more complicated since then. it's a huge risk, but who knows it's the right thing.
2017-04-07 05:25
#29
gas | 
Korea kaiske10v 
in terms of US results it hasnt much
2017-04-07 05:16
#31
 | 
United States aaronjustis 
Wtf why would anyone be talking about US results
2017-04-07 05:18
#32
gas | 
Korea kaiske10v 
because of his tweet
2017-04-07 05:19
#35
 | 
United States r0seCS 
no do u really think its more ok that Trump bombed Syria now than it would have been 4 years ago??
2017-04-07 05:29
yes, less chance of hitting innocents because they're all left for sweden heh heh
2017-04-07 05:38
#63
 | 
United States r0seCS 
xd
2017-04-07 15:27
Because situations can't change and a person's opinion can't change in 4 years, lul
2017-04-07 05:48
So many burgers omg the calories my heart AGHHHHHHHHH
2017-04-07 05:57
#53
 | 
World Buick 
x to the d
2017-04-07 06:10
Well, USA is always like that. Just want to be numba one in the world, but cant, cause of poor living level. Even mohhameds dont like usa
2017-04-07 06:48
USA always come to other land with Peace dude, Oh...
2017-04-07 14:20
Natus Vincere
1.92
Vitality
1.84
Astralis
1.05
Complexity
9.10
100 Thieves
1.76
G2
2.02
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.