Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Social Reader)   UN says Syrian snipers have thoughtfully perforated the strongly-worded letter they were delivering to Assad   (socialreader.com) divider line 174
    More: Followup, snipers, Secretary-General, Syrians  
•       •       •

6332 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 01:34:33 PM  
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

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.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_pro v e_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
 
2013-08-26 01:34:51 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.


So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay
 
2013-08-26 01:38:52 PM  

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay


Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.
 
2013-08-26 01:42:45 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.


Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.
 
2013-08-26 01:44:01 PM  

21-7-b: Saddam's attack on Halabja


There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in.

These sort of distinctions are easy to ignore when you're an advocate of action.

Again, Assad has no real reason to use chemical weapons. His conventional weapons have been very effective. His longevity in this particular situation shows that he's a smart guy, and smart guys don't do dumb things on the eve of victory.

It's romantic to believe that rebels are always in the right, and that every regime needs to fall. But in real life, when rebels win everybody loses.
 
2013-08-26 01:45:26 PM  

garkola: 21-7-b: Saddam's attack on Halabja

There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in.

These sort of distinctions are easy to ignore when you're an advocate of action.

Again, Assad has no real reason to use chemical weapons. His conventional weapons have been very effective. His longevity in this particular situation shows that he's a smart guy, and smart guys don't do dumb things on the eve of victory.

It's romantic to believe that rebels are always in the right, and that every regime needs to fall. But in real life, when rebels win everybody loses.


Not every regime.  And I'm still on the fence about this one, but even I know that Assad has major motivation to pin CW attacks on the rebels.
 
2013-08-26 01:46:01 PM  

neversubmit: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

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.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_pro v e_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran


Rumsfeld was in Iraq talking to the Iraqi administration on the same day that the UN reported to the press that Iraq had used mustard gas on Iranian soldiers. That was in 1984. Your "foreign policy exclusive" is an "exclusive" revealing what everybody knew thirty years after they knew it. Are you really this clueless?
 
2013-08-26 01:47:26 PM  

garkola: 21-7-b: Saddam's attack on Halabja

There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in.

These sort of distinctions are easy to ignore when you're an advocate of action.

Again, Assad has no real reason to use chemical weapons. His conventional weapons have been very effective. His longevity in this particular situation shows that he's a smart guy, and smart guys don't do dumb things on the eve of victory.

It's romantic to believe that rebels are always in the right, and that every regime needs to fall. But in real life, when rebels win everybody loses.


Assad isn't on the "eve of victory," where the hell do you get that idea from?
 
2013-08-26 01:49:37 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat


Here's a fact-based analysis:

Bush doctrine: Identify states that are potential terrorist supporters, and use "preemptive war" to take out their political leadership and transform their countries into pro-Western democracies. Use allies only as a figleaf for unilateral U.S. action. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

Obama doctrine: Use air power and special forces to directly target terrorists, giving a small footprint and an instant exit strategy. In cases of rogue-state action tantamount to genocide, use multinational force whenever possible, through the UN if possible, and NATO if not. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

/Served under every president from Carter to date.
 
2013-08-26 01:50:50 PM  

vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.



So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.
 
2013-08-26 01:51:18 PM  

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.

Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.


So you want us to "go in" and "stay out of it".  Good plan.
 
2013-08-26 01:54:39 PM  
garkola

There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in

What is the difference?
 
2013-08-26 01:57:40 PM  

Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?


Well, as we haven't yet invented a way to clone soldiers and teleport equipment you might be a tiny bit premature in your ranting.

Or it could be the good old public outrage campaign that is generally required in the USA to instigate hostilities.

I really have no prediction what is going to happen, but I'm at least not stupid enough to think anything is going to happen over night.

We aren't talking about the internet or video games here kiddo, shiat takes a while to shuffle around in the real world.
 
2013-08-26 01:58:50 PM  

hej: Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?


You're annoyed by nouns and adjectives?
 
2013-08-26 01:59:08 PM  

Infernalist: Amos Quito: mbillips: IdBeCrazyIf: pag1107: The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.

I don't think it'll be proxy Turk, we know where that could go. I will be proxy Israel IMHO, they already have struck weapons facilities....whats another five....dozen


mbillips: Turkey could wipe Iran's military off the map without taking its eye off Syria.


It's a shame that Israel made an enemy out of Turkey with that whole Mavi Mara flotilla incident then, isn't it? Otherwise Netanyahu could tell Turkey to take out Iran - in stead of sniveling and whining to the US forever.

mbillips: Israel doesn't play ball with NATO; they use their armed forces for Israel, and nobody else. If they wanted to hit Assad, they'd already have done it.


Of course! Why would Israel risk their own lives and resources when idiots like the US can be so easily conned into doing their dirty work for them?


/Selfish little bastards, aren't they?


It hasn't worked with Syria thus far.  I don't like the Israeli government anymore than anyone else, but let's try to stay realistic here.


What?

The "international community" is all fired up - the US already has ships loaded with cruise missiles sailing for Syria - all over evidence free allegations that are more than likely the result of a false-flag operation.

Seems to me that Israel is doing just fine.
 
2013-08-26 01:59:26 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.

Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.

So you want us to "go in" and "stay out of it".  Good plan.


You're not so...Republican, I hope, as to mistake 'intervening in an active war' with 'going in with UN forces after the fact to find out if war crimes/atrocities were committed and by whom', I hope.
 
2013-08-26 02:00:39 PM  

21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality


Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.
 
2013-08-26 02:00:56 PM  

Kahabut: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

Well, as we haven't yet invented a way to clone soldiers and teleport equipment you might be a tiny bit premature in your ranting.

Or it could be the good old public outrage campaign that is generally required in the USA to instigate hostilities.

I really have no prediction what is going to happen, but I'm at least not stupid enough to think anything is going to happen over night.

We aren't talking about the internet or video games here kiddo, shiat takes a while to shuffle around in the real world.


Well, how many more years do you think before we stop being 'on the verge of hostilities' with Syria and actually get involved?  We've already spent most of 2012 and 2013 being on 'that red line'.  A rough number will suffice.  Two more years, three more years?
 
2013-08-26 02:01:59 PM  

swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.


He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?
 
2013-08-26 02:02:27 PM  

mbillips: /Served under every president from Carter to date.



You must go through a lot of this

63games.com
 
2013-08-26 02:04:51 PM  
Bill Hicks - Iraq Weapons Conversion (NSFW) Language

Uploaded on Feb 1, 2008

The clip from Revelations in which Bill talks about Iraqis converting "machine tools" and "farming equipment" into military equipment


What farmer doesn't need a flamethrower rake?
 
2013-08-26 02:05:02 PM  

hej: Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?


Probably.  What other term should we use for "marksman who attacks from a hiding place far away"?
 
2013-08-26 02:07:25 PM  

Amos Quito: Seems to me that Israel is doing just fine.


Those sneaky Jews, and their "doing just fine" ways.
 
2013-08-26 02:08:00 PM  

Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?


Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.
 
2013-08-26 02:08:01 PM  

mbillips: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat

Here's a fact-based analysis:

Bush doctrine: Identify states that are potential terrorist supporters, and use "preemptive war" to take out their political leadership and transform their countries into pro-Western democracies. Use allies only as a figleaf for unilateral U.S. action. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

Obama doctrine: Use air power and special forces to directly target terrorists, giving a small footprint and an instant exit strategy. In cases of rogue-state action tantamount to genocide, use multinational force whenever possible, through the UN if possible, and NATO if not. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

/Served under every president from Carter to date.


farm1.staticflickr.com

Who me?
 
2013-08-26 02:09:52 PM  

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.


So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol
 
2013-08-26 02:13:34 PM  

swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.


http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-dama s cus
 
2013-08-26 02:14:24 PM  

Infernalist: swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.

So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol


So the rebels cover Syria? Or because they have strongholds near Damascus they must have Assad surrounded? If you're not even up-to-date on the situation in Syria you have no business participating in this debate. It is embarrassing.
 
2013-08-26 02:15:03 PM  

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.

So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol

So the rebels cover Syria? Or because they have strongholds near Damascus they must have Assad surrounded? If you're not even up-to-date on the situation in Syria you have no business participating in this debate. It is embarrassing.


Well, if I was actually concerned with the opinion of strangers on the internet, I wouldn't be on Fark, that's for certain.
 
2013-08-26 02:15:47 PM  

muck4doo: Amos Quito: Seems to me that Israel is doing just fine.

Those sneaky Jews clever Zionists and their "doing just fine" ways.



Why pay retail when you can buy wholesale?

Don't work harder, work smarter!

Never put off until tomorrow what you can trick someone else into doing for you today.

Never give a sucker an even break!

Fool you once, shame on you! Fool you twice, laugh in your farking face!


/We're the suckers
//They're just playing us for the suckers that we are
///Can you blame them - REALLY?
 
2013-08-26 02:19:33 PM  
Actually, the Bush doctrine was more subtle than "install western-style democracy."

The Bush doctrine was about removing the ability of the state in question to engage in power projection. Specifically, the goal was to ensure that the entity in question was incapable of taking any global or regional action that would negatively affect the USA.

In that light, the Iraq and Afghan war was very effective. They can hardly shiat in a pot, much less sponsor terrorist groups.
 
2013-08-26 02:29:40 PM  

Carousel Beast: hej: Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?

You're annoyed by nouns and adjectives?


Strictly speaking, the word "assault" in "assault rifle" is a noun adjunct, not an adjective --- unless you see "assault rifle" as a single compound noun, in which case "assault" is a stem (and not a word in its own right).
 
2013-08-26 02:30:06 PM  

Infernalist: Kahabut: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

Well, as we haven't yet invented a way to clone soldiers and teleport equipment you might be a tiny bit premature in your ranting.

Or it could be the good old public outrage campaign that is generally required in the USA to instigate hostilities.

I really have no prediction what is going to happen, but I'm at least not stupid enough to think anything is going to happen over night.

We aren't talking about the internet or video games here kiddo, shiat takes a while to shuffle around in the real world.

Well, how many more years do you think before we stop being 'on the verge of hostilities' with Syria and actually get involved?  We've already spent most of 2012 and 2013 being on 'that red line'.  A rough number will suffice.  Two more years, three more years?


We aren't on the same rail line friend.  I literally have no opinion on when anyone might get involved.

Do I believe that it's a good idea, fark no.  Do I think it might happen anyway, yes, yes it might, when isn't something I would care to  speculate about.

I'm just trying to point out that even if the USA is moving to get involved, these kinds of things rarely happen quickly, and generally they happen only after sufficient public outrage has been generated.  The news cycle of war comes first, then the missiles, then the troops.  This isn't debatable, it's how it's done.  If and when a significant portion of the US citizenry is calling for intervention, you'll see some action.  Not before.
 
2013-08-26 02:30:07 PM  
Is Bashar al-Assad winning the civil war in Syria? 8:00PM BST 23 May 2013

Seems to say yes but not a total win.

Senior Israeli minister: Assad may win Syria war, with help of Iran and Hezbollah  Jun. 10, 2013 | 4:36 PM

Winning, but not a popular thing to admit.

Syria's Assad lauds his army, says he will win war 08.01.13, 11:07

All but declares victory.

It seems we must go now because he is winning.
 
2013-08-26 02:44:15 PM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


So Israel didn't use them? Because once you start, you don't stop.
 
2013-08-26 02:44:27 PM  

neversubmit: Is Bashar al-Assad winning the civil war in Syria? 8:00PM BST 23 May 2013

Seems to say yes but not a total win.

Senior Israeli minister: Assad may win Syria war, with help of Iran and Hezbollah  Jun. 10, 2013 | 4:36 PM

Winning, but not a popular thing to admit.

Syria's Assad lauds his army, says he will win war 08.01.13, 11:07

All but declares victory.

It seems we must go now because he is winning.



Assad won't "win", no matter what.

Israel wants him out, and like good little toadies, we are going to make sure that Israel gets what she wants - as always.

So "we" have committed to siding with the "rebels", for now.

But it IS to "our" advantage to let AssadCo beat the "rebels" as much as possible - as when he falls, there WILL be a power vacuum, and "we" must take care to see that it is filled by those that best serve "our" interests.

It's a tricky game, with many unpredictable variables, but with patience, time, (US) money and (American) blood, it'll all work out.

As long as "we" keep "our" priorities straight.
 
2013-08-26 02:47:18 PM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


So Israel didn't use them?



Blather WHUT?


Because once you start, you don't stop.

See the bolded above.
 
2013-08-26 02:51:03 PM  

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.

So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol

So the rebels cover Syria? Or because they have strongholds near Damascus they must have Assad surrounded? If you're not even up-to-date on the situation in Syria you have no business participating in this debate. It is embarrassing.


Link

It's called a war of attrition. Assad's forces are now completely surrounded in Aleppo. Stating he is "winning" because his side has made some recent gains off of 1000s of foreign (Hezbollah) fighters is way overstating his position.  He'll never rule a united Syria again.
 
2013-08-26 02:51:35 PM  

mbillips: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat

Here's a fact-based analysis:

Bush doctrine: Identify states that are potential terrorist supporters, and use "preemptive war" to take out their political leadership and transform their countries into pro-Western democracies. Use allies only as a figleaf for unilateral U.S. action. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

Obama doctrine: Use air power and special forces to directly target terrorists, giving a small footprint and an instant exit strategy. In cases of rogue-state action tantamount to genocide, use multinational force whenever possible, through the UN if possible, and NATO if not. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

/Served under every president from Carter to date.


I like the analysis.  Concise, and it clearly explains the similarities and differences between the two doctrines, at least from the large/macro level.  I like that you didn't label one as better than the other, and I can't even guess from your phrasing which one you beleive to be more effective.  So many people get caught up in bashing the "other" side, it is refreshing to see some content that moves the conversation forward, instead of shiat-flinging in place.

Just thought I would share my appreciation for a non-inflammatory comment.

As far as potential action in Syria goes, this is about as complex of a situation as you could ever have.  Opposing factions, from the global superpower level (US/UK vs Russia/China), through the regional player level (Iran/Hezbollah vs. Saudi/Turkey), to the on-the-ground factions (Syrian state vs. Nusrah vs. FSA vs. Kurdish seperatists), with a nice mix of religious ideaology mixed in (Sunni/Shia (and Allawhite)/Kurd), plus confirmed WMDs, constantly fluctuating battlefronts, missions in Syrian lands by Israel and Hezballah/Iran, and a huuuuuuge refugee problem.  Nobody knows who to trust, and it seems like things only get worse and more muddied as the months drag on.

I would rather be cautious and deliberate with the involvement of the US military, than to run in guns ablazin' just because there is a fight going on, and we are damned effective at fighting.  There is no clear exit strategy, or even a clear desireable outcome that I have realisitcally heard.  Of course the status quo is terrible for the average Syrian who has had to endure years of war and escalating brutality...

/Have no choice but to trust the international inspectors and reputable news sources for information on CW use
//And even then there needs to be a mountain of hard evidence before deciding to bloody someone's nose
 
2013-08-26 02:57:48 PM  
I still think the solution is to split Syria with a wall. This war is decades from being over. The best we can hope for is to send the children to their rooms until they are too old to blow one another up and their offspring loses interest.
 
2013-08-26 03:04:02 PM  

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.

Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.

So you want us to "go in" and "stay out of it".  Good plan.

You're not so...Republican, I hope, as to mistake 'intervening in an active war' with 'going in with UN forces after the fact to find out if war crimes/atrocities were committed and by whom', I hope.


Well first of all we are already intervening - thankfully no boots on the ground.  I personally beleive we should probably provide intel and non weaponized support to the moderates/secular opposition forces only.  Let other countries give the rebels weapons.  This, especially since Israel just releast a bunch of Sunni jihadists from their prisons who are probably hot foot straight over to Syria.  As far as sending in inspectors after the fact?  Sure, why not, inspectors are already there.  But, it's not like the US Gov pays head inspectors at all times anyway.  The Gov sure blew off UN WMD inspectors work in Iraq. But hey, who knows what the right answer is, as a matter of fact there's so much blowback from all of our meddling, it's hard to say what's right anymore.  Foreign policy is a dark game, so being snarky and somewhat nihlist about it when we are sitting on the sidelines is not an unreasonable coping mechanism.  The Vietnam War turned my entire family upside down.  Between KIAs, Agent Orange and Camp Lejeune water contamination we're lucky any our  family are still alive - so don't mind me if I snark away at interventionism.
 
2013-08-26 03:05:30 PM  
Kerry: chemical attack undeniable, 'there must be accountability'Kerry's remarks are unambiguous as to what the US believes has occurred and he says the "cowardly crime" cannot be allowed to let pass.
"The use of chemical weapons is a moral obsecenity," he says. Kerry says evidence of chemical weapons use "is undeniable."
After extensive remarks which we'll excerpt in a moment, Kerry said the US would act.
"The president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons," Kerry says.
"There must be accountability."
 
2013-08-26 03:09:00 PM  

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


So Israel didn't use them?


Blather WHUT?


Because once you start, you don't stop.

See the bolded above.


So if Israel wanted a credible false flag, they'd make sure to keep using them. Since it's not, it can't be a false flag, unless your contention is that they're stupid.
 
2013-08-26 03:18:47 PM  
Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."
 
2013-08-26 03:22:30 PM  

oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."


80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.
 
2013-08-26 03:26:58 PM  

AngryDragon: oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."

80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.


Pretty much.

Funny, all the debate on acting without UN approval. Very little debate about congressional approval.
 
2013-08-26 03:34:19 PM  
Russia, meanwhile, said Western nations calling for military action have no proof the Syrian government was behind any chemical attacks.


I don't think that Russia has any business being on the Security Council anymore. Instead of "let's investigate," all they seem to be good for is "Nuh uh!" and obstructionism.
 
2013-08-26 03:37:31 PM  

AngryDragon: oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."

80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.


Hmmm... strange. It's almost like there's a difference between committing 150,000 ground troops to a 7-year mission and lobbing a few cruise missiles for a couple of weeks. The American people are such simpletons that way.
 
2013-08-26 03:39:24 PM  

BigNumber12: Russia, meanwhile, said Western nations calling for military action have no proof the Syrian government was behind any chemical attacks.


I don't think that Russia has any business being on the Security Council anymore. Instead of "let's investigate," all they seem to be good for is "Nuh uh!" and obstructionism.


It was the U.S. that tried to obstruct the U.N. investigators today. Told them it was too dangerous, go home.
 
2013-08-26 03:45:53 PM  

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.

The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here

Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.


We've been committed to involvement for a long time.


Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


Friends, we have someone among us here who knows how policy is made in both Washington and Damascus.  I'm impressed.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report