If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   France has decided that if Syria used chemical weapons, that the U.S. should do something about it   (cnn.com) divider line 215
    More: Obvious, Israel Radio, Ahmet Davutoglu, U.S., 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, chemical weapons, United Nations Security Council, international humanitarian law, information minister  
•       •       •

4987 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 8:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 10:57:29 AM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Let someone else take care of it this time.

I've had enough endless war today this century.


Yes, going on two decades into the 21st century and we have been involved in some kind of armed conflict almost the entire time.

Enough.
 
2013-08-22 11:06:07 AM  
The thing is, BOB should have gotten involved in this on day one supporting the rebels. Perhaps getting Assad tossed out early on and injecting some stability to the country. Now, Assad is fighting more Crazy Islamists than anything else and I say let them kill each other.Yep, a lot of innocents are going to suffer, but it's the price you pay for allowing your country to be run by dictators.
 
2013-08-22 11:11:56 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.


By that logic, we should be doing that to every single war going on right now. You wanna go look at them, count 'em up for me? Where do you think the money for that is coming from? And what makes you think we have the moral right to interfere in someone else's conflict?

Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends  very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.
 
2013-08-22 11:12:44 AM  
Syria is not about oil, it's about natural gas, specifically where pipelines for Middle Eastern NG supplies should go. Syria and Iran (Shia) support a pipeline that would allow Russia to gain even greater market share in NATO countries, which scares the US because it fears NATO could shatter over resource shortages.
So the US is supporting the Syrian rebels (our good Sunni friends) who want to build a friendlier to our interests pipeline to Europe, passing from Qatar to Iraq to Turkey and Israel(?). The CIA is helping our good friends Al Qaeda in the revolution against the Syrian government.
This was covered in yesterday's 2nd Al Jazeera thread by some informed farker. I'll dig up his links if anyone cares.
 
2013-08-22 11:13:35 AM  
It's a civil war.  No good endings there.  Those international agreements on the "rules of war" were originally conceived by big Western countries to limit the scopes of their engagements with each other.  It may have been a mistake to attempt to extend them to civil wars - it sounds good but it takes the practical application of solutions into a very different sphere.  Instead of assisting or jumping into the fight along side of an existing sovereign nation resisting a hostile (and dirty) opponent, you're forced to jump into the midst of a civil war where one country's people are killing themselves.

"we can't tolerate chemical weapons use" sounds great on paper.  How do you stop it without full-on invasion?
 
2013-08-22 11:15:31 AM  

PsiChick: Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.


The rebels were repeatedly asking for US intervention in the institution of a No Fly Zone. I think when a conflict is occurring and one side has kids dying and asks for help, then we are morally obligated to do something. Like I said, obliterate the military power through strategic strikes that are easily done using cruise missiles and drones, institute a No Fly Zone, send aid to the refugee camps and tell the Rebels that it's your country, you do what you want just no killing kids with mass destruction weapons.
 
2013-08-22 11:23:13 AM  
Really if the entire country and all of the people in it died in a big flash today... it would have no serious impact on the US. Europe maybe but not us. Getting involved would have a big impact and not a positive one. No matter which side we support we'll end up regretting it because they are equally craptasticly bad. Long term resources in natural gas has some impact but really, we don't need anyone alive in there to pull that resource out. In fact the more desperate they are the better.

Someone hand me a fiddle, I'll play it for them so they can get back to the shooting.
 
2013-08-22 11:26:10 AM  
Here the pipeline info from yesterday:

cirrhosis_and_halitosis:

Not really a battle with Russia over sales but more control of ME gas.  Euro countries (a large part of NATO) are heavily dependent on Russia for gas and oil.  Qatar wants to build a pipeline that will end in Turkey (another NATO member).  US isn't happy about Iran building a different pipeline to Pakistan and India.  Basically, Syria and Iran are in the way of US and NATO interests.
Here is a better link:
The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian "Opposition" Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline
 
2013-08-22 11:30:09 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: PsiChick: Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.

The rebels were repeatedly asking for US intervention in the institution of a No Fly Zone. I think when a conflict is occurring and one side has kids dying and asks for help, then we are morally obligated to do something. Like I said, obliterate the military power through strategic strikes that are easily done using cruise missiles and drones, institute a No Fly Zone, send aid to the refugee camps and tell the Rebels that it's your country, you do what you want just no killing kids with mass destruction weapons.


I didn't know that, so yes, that does change the situation, and in that case...yup, we should intervene, provided it won't send us into another recession.

/Our last recession had global implications, let's not do that again, mmmkay...
 
2013-08-22 11:38:05 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: The US will be more than happy to intervene in the rebellion they created and have been funding since the beginning.  And US citizens will fall for the same tired "cleanin' up the world's evil" propaganda that they trot out time after time.


Yeah, but even so, it's kind of sad that the Syrian government has found it necessary to kill tens of thousands of deluded marionettes of US imperialism of all ages, sexes, and conditions while all this has been going on, and to create refugees of a million more of them, don't you think?
 
2013-08-22 11:39:42 AM  
We keep trying to save everyone when we should just allow natural selection to happen. Let them kill each other, decrease the population over time, wall ourselves and our interests in and let nature take over. War and violence is a symptom of being human, I say treat it like any other disease and let it do it's job, not go about curing it.

Although the images are horrible and as a parent it kills me to see dead children, every time we become entangled, we lose in the end. I've had enough.
 
2013-08-22 11:44:40 AM  
It's always fun when people who generally make a living complaining about US interference in the world always look in our direction when they want something interfered with. Must be nice to be able to shout down to us Americans to do their dirty work from way up there in the clouds of the moral high ground.
 
2013-08-22 11:48:50 AM  

Sentient: As someone once said to me, when faced with multiple solutions that won't work, pick the cheapest.

Stay the fark out and complain via the world's equivalent of the on-line petition, the UN Security Council. And for humanity's sake, start shipping medical supplies and food. (Yes, I know it'll all wind up on the black market & in the hands of "terrorists" but y'know, at least it has a chance of helping someone along the way.)


feels like a fail, but you're probably right. you'd think we could do better in 2013 wouldnt you.
 
2013-08-22 11:54:42 AM  
What was that movie? Hellraiser? Just give all of them a goddamn straight-edge razor and let them go to town on themselves, stupid, sick, farked-up dipshiats.
 
2013-08-22 12:10:58 PM  
If you want to re-settle some Palestinians, I hear there are some openings up there.
 
2013-08-22 12:17:47 PM  

macadamnut: The Koch brothers have decided that if Obama pretends Syria used chemical weapons, your taxes should do something about it.


So in addition to producing PBS's NOVA they are also ventriloquists?
 
2013-08-22 12:18:47 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: The rebels were repeatedly asking for US intervention in the institution of a No Fly Zone. I think when a conflict is occurring and one side has kids dying and asks for help, then we are morally obligated to do something. Like I said, obliterate the military power through strategic strikes that are easily done using cruise missiles and drones, institute a No Fly Zone, send aid to the refugee camps and tell the Rebels that it's your country, you do what you want just no killing kids with mass destruction weapons


No, we really aren't.

Kids die all over the world every day.  Thousands of them.  Many to violence in the ongoing conflicts that never seem to stop.  This just seems more horrible because it was a chemical weapons attack.  They are still dead though as much as if it had been by fire, explosion, bullet, or cruelty.

We should not meddle in the internal affairs of nations.  The Syrian rebels are a conglomeration of resistance groups in the nation now.  Those groups include some of the people we have already been fighting for 10 years.  You want to now go in and help them because of one event?

Let the UN do something if there is world consensus.  If the world doesn't want us to police it when things are quiet then we shouldn't be doing so when things are chaotic either.
 
2013-08-22 12:23:15 PM  
tirob:  Yeah, but even so, it's kind of sad that the Syrian government has found it necessary to kill tens of thousands of deluded marionettes of US imperialism of all ages, sexes, and conditions while all this has been going on, and to create refugees of a million more of them, don't you think?

I'm sure that Assad's military has some blood on its hands, civil wars tend to get messy.  But the numbers and atrocities have been grossly misrepresented to further US interests.  The CIA inflamed tensions and armed the opposition from the beginning, most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.  Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens, especially when UN weapons inspectors just landed in town.

What I'm asking is for US citizens to do a little research of their own before accepting the US gov't at its word and signing off on America Fark Yeah yet again.  The Bush and Obama administrations have been shown time and again to be less than truthful, even willfully deceptive.  Kind of similar to Iraq.

I only care because the US march across the Middle East is nearing its end.  NATO (US) military intervention in Syria will unleash holy hell as many players that have been sitting on the sidelines enter the game.  And it's gonna get uglier than anything seen before.

US motivation in the ME has never been about rounding up the bad guys.  It's oil.  And gas.  And control of oil and gas.
 
2013-08-22 12:24:12 PM  
AngryDragon

Yes, going on two decades into the 21st century and we have been involved in some kind of armed conflict almost the entire time.

Enough.


Since the end of WW2 we've been involved in nearly continuous armed conflict. Gen. Mac Author told the President at the end of WW2 to turn and hit Stalin before he could recover, but he was ignored and later fired. He knew Stalin was going to be a pain in the arse and he was right.

Almost as soon as the smoke cleared, Stalin was grabbing for what he could get, spreading communism as fast as possible while the Allie's were still regrouping.

The cold war started nearly immediately. Since then, we've hop-scotched the globe, getting involved in conflict after conflict and after Communism fell, their massive amount of surplus weapons went to arming assorted rebel groups. Armed with modern weaponry, nations just up from cooking over camel dung fires decided they had balls and promptly started slaughtering each other.

Stalin knew about our nukes even before we got one to work and he was supposedly an ally. He had the US infested with spies as we were preoccupied fighting the Axis Powers.

Since WW2, there have been more people killed in these 'little squabbles' than were killed in the entirety of the war itself. Several nations have taken Hitler's genocidal tendencies and 'final solution' to a whole new level for themselves, only terming it 'Ethnic Cleansing'.

After WW2, we captured and killed off the majority of the Nazi's involved in the holocaust, but today many of the people involved in their own Ethnic Cleansing's not only are still free but walking around proud of their actions.

'Brother #3' of the Khmer Rouge that started the Vietnam War, successfully fought prosecution for his war crimes that made Hitler look like a choirboy until he died of old age!

Actually, when you think about it, we've been involved in battles since WW1. From the Spanish Civil War to the Cuban Revolution, the Korean War and Vietnam. Apartide (sp) turned Africa into a mess and Saudi Arabia with OPEC enabled the Islamic World to start showing their arses.

Pretty much, ever since WW1, everyone has been squabbling with everyone else. The US has either jumped or been sucked into the majority of these armed disputes. In a few, thanks to Stalin and his cold war tactics, the US managed to even trigger some in an effort to fight communism.

Stalin died before the cold war became the Cold War but his successors were out and out crazy, while he was insane. They pushed it more into the behind the scenes thing.

We haven't made it even a century without some sort of global war going on for the last couple of hundred years.

Maybe that's why we haven't heard from any real outer space aliens. Humans are damn good at making war.
 
2013-08-22 12:26:49 PM  
Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.
 
2013-08-22 12:34:31 PM  
It makes no difference. No matter what the US dose its going to be all our fault.
 
2013-08-22 12:38:21 PM  
Just like with Libya, this is none of our business.  This is an internal matter.  If the UN decides to do something, fine, we might help.  Otherwise, stay out of it.
 
2013-08-22 12:45:23 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: tirob:  Yeah, but even so, it's kind of sad that the Syrian government has found it necessary to kill tens of thousands of deluded marionettes of US imperialism of all ages, sexes, and conditions while all this has been going on, and to create refugees of a million more of them, don't you think?

I'm sure that Assad's military has some blood on its hands, civil wars tend to get messy.  But the numbers and atrocities have been grossly misrepresented to further US interests.


Or so you say.  The UN has been talking about 100,000 killed, the vast majority of them on the rebel side.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.

Or so you say.  The estimates I have seen are that five percent of them are.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens


As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: The Bush and Obama administrations have been shown time and again to be less than truthful


They have that in common with most of the governments of the world, the Syrian government not excluded.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: NATO (US) military intervention in Syria will unleash holy hell as many players that have been sitting on the sidelines enter the game. And it's gonna get uglier than anything seen before.


Would you describe the current situation in Syria as "pretty?"

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: US motivation in the ME has never been about rounding up the bad guys. It's oil. And gas. And control of oil and gas.


I'll buy that.  Which makes it OK for the Syrian government to kill tens of thousands of innocent people, right?
 
2013-08-22 12:50:53 PM  
If France doesn't care for what Syria is doing, I suggest they team up with Israel (who also seem to dislike Syria) and have a go at them. Both France and Israel are nuclear powers with decent military forces, so I'm sure they can clean up what is left of the Syrian forces fairly quickly. We here in the US are done with blowing up stuff halfways across the planet, it's time we worried about fixing our economy and not spilling blood and treasure in yet another potential quagmire.
 
2013-08-22 12:55:19 PM  

tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.

Or so you say. The estimates I have seen are that five percent of them are.



"Five percent" is "most"?


tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens

As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.



Oh yeah, go ahead and set up your no-fly zones - bomb the shiat out of us, send in your tanks, rake us across the coals and hunt us down like dogs, UN!

See if WE care!!!

NEENER NEENER NEENER!!!


/Are you trollin' tirob?
 
2013-08-22 01:02:42 PM  
Who doesn't love the occasional proxy war? This sounds like a GREAT idea!

/America FARK YEAH!
 
2013-08-22 01:08:40 PM  

Amos Quito: Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.


Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?
 
2013-08-22 01:15:14 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: So what would you do? Condemn their actions verbally and do nothing? Wouldn't that look weak? Would you pick a side in Egypt or Syria? You say "evil" is gassing innocents in Syria, so would you take the side of Al-Qaeda? You say "evil" is killing innocents in Egypt, so would you support the Muslim Brotherhood there? If Obama picked the sides you're calling "innocent," you'd be on here ranting about how he's using American military might to support Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. If he did the opposite, we'd all hear about how Assad and Egypt's military gov't aren't legitimate.


You don't make speeches about "red lines" when you aren't planning to follow through. I'm not upset that he hasn't followed through though. I'm upset that he opened up his pie-hole about it in the first place.
 
2013-08-22 01:16:33 PM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.

Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?



I agree because their assessment makes sense.

/That it happens to be Russians making the assessment is incidental
 
2013-08-22 01:27:35 PM  

umad: You don't make speeches about "red lines" when you aren't planning to follow through. I'm not upset that he hasn't followed through though. I'm upset that he opened up his pie-hole about it in the first place


He does seem to have a habit of speaking before he knows all the facts, doesn't he?
 
2013-08-22 01:34:31 PM  

Offog: Odd as this sounds, I think we should sink their navy and clear cut their naval infrastructure. Come right out and say ' you used a WMD and this is our measured response penalty, you want to double down?'  It is something that would hurt the
Syrian government and the military establishment without getting involved in the no good options civil war, it would inconvenience the Russians who want to use the facilities, there isn't a lot to their naval branch so we could do it in a weekend, and the cost of a few munitions would be offset by the field test real world data it would provide- it would be the neatest thing we've done since the Spanish American War.


THIS IS PURE GENIUS.

I haven't been so impressed with a comment on Fark since the original "26 minutes" thread.

/Lurked for years.  I love Fark.
 
2013-08-22 01:36:24 PM  

tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: 

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens

As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.


I will only comment on this one item since it's obvious that we get our information from vastly different sources.

Assad's forces are close to restoring order without outside intervention.  What does he have to gain by using chemical weapons and rolling out the red carpet for a UN (US) intervention (invasion)?
 
2013-08-22 01:37:04 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: most of the anti-Assad fighters aren't even Syrians.

Or so you say. The estimates I have seen are that five percent of them are.


I think you may have misunderstood me.  c and h asserted that half of the anti-Assad fighters weren't Syrian.  According to what I have read, five percent of them are not Syrian.  I was *disagreeing* with c and h.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Amos Quito: Oh yeah, go ahead and set up your no-fly zones - bomb the shiat out of us, send in your tanks, rake us across the coals and hunt us down like dogs, UN!

See if WE care!!!


c and h was conjecturing.  So was I.  So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.

Since 2011, who has been bombing the sh*t out of Syria, sending tanks into populated areas, and hunting people down like dogs?  The UN?
 
2013-08-22 01:39:26 PM  

PsiChick: IdBeCrazyIf: When I saw the images last night dead and dying kids all I personally could think of was the moment in the Punisher Dirty Laundry short where Frank is standing in the doorway watching the violence unfold outside and the liquor store owner sits there and says "Makes you wanna do something, doesn't it?"

And right now we're just standing in the doorway doing nothing, lamenting "There's always a war on somewhere"

Enough is farking enough. Strategically bomb Assad's army into the farking ground, institute a no fly zone and inform the rebels that in the end game when kids die whoever killed em is dying as well...no matter which side.

By that logic, we should be doing that to every single war going on right now. You wanna go look at them, count 'em up for me? Where do you think the money for that is coming from? And what makes you think we have the moral right to interfere in someone else's conflict?

Yeah, it sucks, but our ethical and financial obligation is to stay the fark out. We don't know these people. We don't know their culture. We aren't them. You can't interfere for another country and make them work shiat out, because historically that ends  very farking badly--and even if it didn't, we do not and never will have the money to pay for more of this shiat.


#winning is you.

Let's leave this one alone.
 
2013-08-22 01:41:18 PM  
umad:
You don't make speeches about "red lines" when you aren't planning to follow through. I'm not upset that he hasn't followed through though. I'm upset that he opened up his pie-hole about it in the first place.

Setting out the principle that using weapons of mass destruction is a crime against humanity is definitely the right thing for the President of the world's only super power to do. And the President doesn't really have a pie hole, he's the voice of the Free World.

it's possible the covert boots on the ground know someone besides the Assad government did this. And, it's possible that coming out and saying it was a rebel false flag operation would give world support and legitimacy to Assad.

With so many players of geo-political intrigue involved in Syria the general public will not know what the truth is.
 
2013-08-22 01:42:41 PM  
vygramul:  Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?

I agree, the original Red Dawn is far superior to the crappy the remake.  Choose your propaganda wisely.
 
2013-08-22 01:45:39 PM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: Russia is calling this a false-flag op.

Syria chemical weapons use reports are pre-planned provocation - Russian Foreign Ministry

QUOTE:


"The fact that agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all responsibility on the government, draws attention," the ministry quoted Lukashevich as saying in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is apparently no coincidence that information like this regarding the authorities using chemical weapons has been thrown in before, including in the past days, citing some opposition sources, however it was not confirmed later," Lukashevich said.

"All this can only lead us to think that we are dealing again with a provocation planned in advance," Lukashevich said.

"The fact that the criminal action near Damascus was carried out just when the mission of UN experts to investigate the statements on possible chemical weapons use there has successfully begun its work in Syria points to this," the statement said."

END QUOTE


I'm inclined to agree.

Why am I not surprised you're inclined to agree with Russia?


I agree because their assessment makes sense.

/That it happens to be Russians making the assessment is incidental


Yeah, well, anyone who says "false flag" is automatically right in your book.
 
2013-08-22 01:46:22 PM  

AngryDragon: Kids die all over the world every day. Thousands of them. Many to violence in the ongoing conflicts that never seem to stop. This just seems more horrible because it was a chemical weapons attack. They are still dead though as much as if it had been by fire, explosion, bullet, or cruelty.


That, and because for some reason this particular story is all over the news media that happen to be owned by the same corporate entities that will hugely profit from violent US intervention, which would incidentally kill thousands of children by fire, explosion, bullet, and cruelty, but that's not important right now.
 
2013-08-22 01:48:11 PM  

Wangiss: #winning is you.

Let's leave this one alone.


Actually, we were asked to go in, I was wrong about that. Since we were, we do actually have some obligation to at least take a position on it. That said, my position is still 'stay the fark out' because both sides are freakin' terrorists.
 
2013-08-22 02:11:22 PM  

tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.



Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.
 
2013-08-22 02:14:31 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.


Benefit? Europe, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar, the US. Not the Syrian government.
 
2013-08-22 02:29:38 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: tirob: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Syria has everything to lose by gassing its own citizens

As long as we're indulging in speculation here, let me speculate that the Syrian government would find this an *ideal* time to gas its citizens, in order to prove to them that it doesn't care what the UN thinks of it.

I will only comment on this one item since it's obvious that we get our information from vastly different sources.

Assad's forces are close to restoring order


"Restoring order" in the loosest possible sense of the term, that is.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: What does he have to gain by using chemical weapons and rolling out the red carpet for a UN (US) intervention (invasion)?


Street cred within Syria.  As for the possibility that the UN/US will intervene, Assad has managed to do a lot of dirty work in the past two years while simultaneously avoiding such an intervention.  He may think by this time that his lucky streak will continue.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I will only comment on this one item since it's obvious that we get our information from vastly different sources.


Your "source" wouldn't be Michel Chossudovsky, by any chance?

Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?


Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?


From a knee-jerk conclusion?  Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?
 
2013-08-22 02:30:14 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.


Well, Assad knows you can't be fooled, so rather than wait for the false flag, he launched the attack, knowing that the false flag crowd would give him cover.
 
2013-08-22 02:31:35 PM  

simplicimus: Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.

Benefit? Europe, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar, the US. Not the Syrian government.


US public will buy in hook, line, and sinker.  MSM is emphasizing "Syria bad" by showing gassed children ad infinitum to tug at the heartstrings.   Thankfully, US military has saddled its white horse to save the day yet again.
 
2013-08-22 02:37:53 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: simplicimus: Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.

Benefit? Europe, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar, the US. Not the Syrian government.

US public will buy in hook, line, and sinker.  MSM is emphasizing "Syria bad" by showing gassed children ad infinitum to tug at the heartstrings.   Thankfully, US military has saddled its white horse to save the day yet again.


Eh, not so much:
"

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the conflict in Syria a "complex sectarian war," and he warned in explicit detail that virtually every option involving the use of military force is staggeringly expensive and might not work.

On training and advising the rebels, Dempsey said:

Risks include extremists gaining access to additional capabilities, retaliatory cross-border attacks, and insider attacks or inadvertent association with war crimes due to vetting difficulties.

Bomb Syria? Said Dempsey:

The costs would be in the billions. ... There is a risk that the regime could withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets. Retaliatory attacks are also possible, and there is a probability for collateral damage impacting civilians and foreigners inside the country.

Establish a no-fly zone? Says Dempsey:

We would require hundreds of ground and sea-based aircraft, intelligence and electronic warfare support, and enablers for refueling and communications. Estimated costs are $500 million initially, averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year.

And he concluded:

Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.

 http://www.thenation.com/blog/175400/top-us-general-questions-syr ia-wa r#
 
2013-08-22 02:48:19 PM  

simplicimus: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: 

US public will buy in hook, line, and sinker.  MSM is emphasizing "Syria bad" by showing gassed children ad infinitum to tug at the heartstrings.   Thankfully, US military has saddled its white horse to save the day yet again.

Eh, not so much:
"

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the conflict in Syria a "complex sectarian war," and he warned in explicit detail that virtually every option involving the use of military force is staggeringly expensive and might not work.


Military officials also warned against action in Iraq.  My guess is that tactics will change this time around and intervention will be a collaborative effort through the UN .  The US has spent too much time fishing to suddenly cut bait.
 
2013-08-22 02:58:20 PM  

tirob: Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

From a knee-jerk conclusion? Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?



Yep, you're trollin'.


vygramul: Amos Quito: tirob: c and h was conjecturing. So was I. So too, I suspect, was the writer of the voiceofrussia.com article you cited.


Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Who stands to benefit?

It's a simple but very pertinent question.

Well, Assad knows you can't be fooled, so rather than wait for the false flag, he launched the attack, knowing that the false flag crowd would give him cover.



Do you know WHO ELSE has been lobbing missiles into Syria this year?
 
2013-08-22 03:01:58 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: simplicimus: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: 

US public will buy in hook, line, and sinker.  MSM is emphasizing "Syria bad" by showing gassed children ad infinitum to tug at the heartstrings.   Thankfully, US military has saddled its white horse to save the day yet again.

Eh, not so much:
"

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the conflict in Syria a "complex sectarian war," and he warned in explicit detail that virtually every option involving the use of military force is staggeringly expensive and might not work.

Military officials also warned against action in Iraq.  My guess is that tactics will change this time around and intervention will be a collaborative effort through the UN .  The US has spent too much time fishing to suddenly cut bait.


Pretty sure Russia and China would veto any UN action.
 
2013-08-22 03:16:37 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

From a knee-jerk conclusion? Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?

Yep, you're trollin'.


Well, you don't have to answer any of my questions if you don't want to, of course.  But whether you think so or not, they were honest questions.
 
2013-08-22 03:40:51 PM  

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: Why should we jump to the knee-jerk conclusion that Assad's forces launched these attacks?

Show me where I jumped to any conclusion about who gassed those people.

Amos Quito: Who stands to benefit?

From a knee-jerk conclusion? Or from an intervention against the armed forces of the Syrian government?

Yep, you're trollin'.


I will add that your question was ambiguous, which is why I asked you to clarify it.  And in my experience arguing with you here, I have noticed that you go in quite often for ambiguous (or leading) statements and questions.  I therefore hope that you will forgive my caution in this case.
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report