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.

(Fox News)   You know who else advocated attacking a country because they used WMDs on their own people?   (foxnews.com) divider line 485
    More: News, Secretary of State John Kerry, WMDs, chemical weapons, Buck McKeon, military plans, White House Press Secretary  
•       •       •

19526 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 4:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 09:09:27 PM  

Amos Quito: Heron: SithLord: TuteTibiImperes: As long as we limit ourselves to air and missile strikes only we should be able to handle this quickly.  If we try to put boots on the ground and built a government over there we'll be looking at another Iraq.

Do CIA Assets and Spec Ops count as boots on the ground?

I seem to recall a story revealing  CIA "trainers" working with the rebels coming out 6 months to a year ago, but that could be my brain making crap up. Too lazy to check the intertubes :p


How about  a report from this past week?

Jerusalem Post

Report: Syrian rebel forces trained by West are moving towards Damascus

QUOTES:

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

END QUOTES

Gather 'round, kids! It's Amos' Famous CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!!!





 Note the dates?

CIA and Mossad trained operatives depart the Syrian/Jordan border on August 17th and 19th, headed toward DAMASCUS.

COINCIDENTALLY, a massive chemical weapon is detonated on August 21, on the outskirts of where? DAMASCUS.

AND CURIOUSLY the US and Israel seemed to know IMMEDIATELY that there HAD been a CW attack, AND blamed AssadCo.


Now, don't get me wrong, I'm NOT sayin' that this was necessarily a "false-flag" attacked designed to set up a US invasion of Syria!

All I'm sayin' is, that if it WAS a false flag attack, we have a pretty good idea of who MIGHT have had SOMETHING to do with pulling it off.

Don't ya think???


/God Bless us, EVERY ONE!


So, vote republicrat?
 
2013-08-26 09:13:05 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: The rebellion is being led by factions/tribes that are sympathetic to Al Queda and their desire to restore the Caliphate by bringing about the 12th Imam.


I read the link. But al-Qaeda as Salafist Sunnis--they are all about Ibn Tamiyya (or what they think he is) and the supposed pre-Ottoman restoration of the Caliphate. The Twelvers are Shias. They don't do a Caliphate or Ibn Tamiyya. They want an Imamate. Except in very limited historical circumstances hundreds of years ago there is no overlap between those concepts. The Qaedans have attacked Iran several times and want to kill every last Shia. Assad is an Alawite, a member of the 10% minority that is allied with the Shia. That's why Iran supports Assad and al-Qaeda wants to destroy him. Yes they like to provoke superpowers like the USA and Russia. But they want to kill Shias, not help them. I don't know why you're mixing them up.
 
2013-08-26 09:15:58 PM  
Neighborhood Watch: including Al Qaeda (shhhh... that's a phony scandal,

What about al-Qaeda is a "phony scandal?" Do you think al-Qaeda isn't real? Are you a Truther?
 
2013-08-26 09:17:08 PM  

karmaceutical: Is this the thread where garden variety Fark conserva-trolls pretend to be against this sort of thing?


I think this the thread where everyone is tired of this shiat an realizes that there is no "win" in this action for the US.

US Gets involved and Syrian Army manages a win. Assad still in power, Syrian leaders hate US. Russia looks like King shiat of fark Island. The US tax payers lose.

US gets involved And rebels win. AlQueda steamrolls any sane faction of the FSA and installs new Islamic Regime and Syrian Leaders Hate US. The US taxpayers lose.

It's like choosing side in a knife fight between a rapist and a pedophile.
 
2013-08-26 09:19:00 PM  
Obama and Hillary have reinstated the Cold War.  Good job!
 
2013-08-26 09:19:37 PM  

LL316: bwilson27: Maul555: Anyone who doesn't want us to bomb needs to be wishing Obama never made any of those red line speeches.  Now we have to bomb or else we lose credibility.  if we lose credibility, then anybody can use chemical weapons on whomever they want, because who's gonna stop them?  If not the US, then no one will...

Syria has called our bluff, and now the bombs need to fall.

No bombs need to fall. In fact, Bombs need to be farking eliminated altogether. This is NOT cowboys and Indians, it's the real world.
Take all your overgrown infants away, somewhere, and build them a home....

It's funny that you comment that this is the real world, but in the same thought talk about how bombs need to be eliminated altogether.  Cuz...that's the real world?


Yes, it's the real world. Got a problem?
 
2013-08-26 09:19:54 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: tirob: .

As long as we're speculating now, I think that Assad benefits in two ways:  1) it's 355 of his perceived enemies dead, thousands more in the hospital, and a lesson to everyone else in Syria that if you look sideways at the forces of the government, you could be next, and 2) a message to the UN sock puppets of the Zionist entity that the Syrian government is sovereign and will do whatever it likes on its own territory, thank you.

You realize that no one who uses phrases like 'sock puppets of the Zionist entity' can ever hope to be taken seriously, right?


I was speaking in the voice of the Syrian government as Apikoros says, but I assure you that there are people out there who use phrases like this all the time and expect to be taken *very* seriously.

Apik0r0s: tirob: As long as we're speculating now, 

That's completely rational.

/backs away


Do you think that Assad is necessarily a rational actor these days?  The man has after all been under a huge amount of pressure for the past two years.
 
2013-08-26 09:20:51 PM  
What would prevent us from just doing what we did in Yugoslavia and keeping the fight off the ground?  The Kosovo campaign went incredibly well, it was short, cheap for a war, we didn't lose anyone in combat, and it was effective.

Just take them out from above and by missile.  Knock down Assad's forces enough that the rebels can take care of the rest and let the remnants of Assad's army and the rebels wear each other down for as long as they have any fight left in them.  Syria will be left in ruins and not a threat to any of our interests in the area, Assad's forces will kill some Al-Qaeda guys, Al-Qaeda will kill Assad's guys, and we can just sit back and let it play out.
 
2013-08-26 09:21:14 PM  

Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The rebellion is being led by factions/tribes that are sympathetic to Al Queda and their desire to restore the Caliphate by bringing about the 12th Imam.

I read the link. But al-Qaeda as Salafist Sunnis--they are all about Ibn Tamiyya (or what they think he is) and the supposed pre-Ottoman restoration of the Caliphate. The Twelvers are Shias. They don't do a Caliphate or Ibn Tamiyya. They want an Imamate. Except in very limited historical circumstances hundreds of years ago there is no overlap between those concepts. The Qaedans have attacked Iran several times and want to kill every last Shia. Assad is an Alawite, a member of the 10% minority that is allied with the Shia. That's why Iran supports Assad and al-Qaeda wants to destroy him. Yes they like to provoke superpowers like the USA and Russia. But they want to kill Shias, not help them. I don't know why you're mixing them up.


I'll tell you why, when you get right down to it, an Islamo nutter is an Islamo nutter.  Tribes/factions/ allegiances...none of it matters.  The common denominator is that all of these are people still living in the 12th century and this planet has no room for their insanity.
 
2013-08-26 09:24:39 PM  

Deep Contact: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Maybe we should send Kerry to go check. Go Kerry, go go go.

Biden can drive his Trans Am there.


Hope Uncle Joe brings his double barreled 12 gauge along for security.
 
2013-08-26 09:26:24 PM  

jaybeezey: karmaceutical: Is this the thread where garden variety Fark conserva-trolls pretend to be against this sort of thing?

I think this the thread where everyone is tired of this shiat an realizes that there is no "win" in this action for the US.

US Gets involved and Syrian Army manages a win. Assad still in power, Syrian leaders hate US. Russia looks like King shiat of fark Island. The US tax payers lose.

US gets involved And rebels win. AlQueda steamrolls any sane faction of the FSA and installs new Islamic Regime and Syrian Leaders Hate US. The US taxpayers lose.

It's like choosing side in a knife fight between a rapist and a pedophile.


Except it isn't nearly as easy as having two sides. What about the non-combatants and civilians? Forget the political agendas of those fighting, what about those stuck between the rapist and pedophile? That is the tricky part. Doing one thing may get the person stuck in the middle stabbed or raped. Doing nothing will get the person stabbed or raped. No matter what, the US gets the blame. "Why didn't you help us!" - or - "Why did you help us, now we are worse off than before!"

Now, not intervening means that almost 0 Americans or joint-forces die - but a shiat ton of civilians and friendlies will probably die. Is it better to be hated for having power and not acting, or having power and acting? What if instead of eliminating the rapist or the pedophile, you destroy both of them and tell whatever is left to figure shiat out on their own?
 
2013-08-26 09:30:28 PM  
It's like a skipping record these days. Everything's about distraction and fueling the news cycle. The system keeps working like they designed it, and the "war" is scheduled for prime time.

Yawn. Makes me glad I stopped watching broadcast and cable television except for hand-picked shows on streaming services.
 
2013-08-26 09:32:27 PM  
www.strangepolitics.com
 
2013-08-26 09:32:50 PM  

ZeroCorpse: It's like a skipping record these days. Everything's about distraction and fueling the news cycle. The system keeps working like they designed it, and the "war" is scheduled for prime time.

Yawn. Makes me glad I stopped watching broadcast and cable television except for hand-picked shows on streaming services.


It's the same folks now making news as TV shows. Masters of fiction.
 
2013-08-26 09:34:41 PM  
So what is the difference between a chemical attack and a drone strike? Number of civilian casualties? Screw let the towel heads fight it out, the US has no business spending our blood and gold on that shiat hole.
 
2013-08-26 09:36:18 PM  

Wise_Guy: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: dr_blasto: OK, then. I guess I'll just stick with what we actually have evidence to support.

Sure, facts. *chortle*......It is a fact nothing was found in Iraq. It is also a fact a large convoy of trucks left Iraq and went to Syria as we ginned up the invasion. I'm sure it was just food and t-shirts. I can't ask you to prove a negative, I only have my suspicions and some extremely interesting coincidences. It's ok, call me a nut. I don't care.  The Sarin came from somewhere, close. That is also a fact.

Sarin has a shelf life measured in weeks.

That's why it is stored as a binary weapon-- the two parts are mixed only when it is to be deployed.


If I'm reading the wiki article right, even the precursors have short shelf lives.
 
2013-08-26 09:38:57 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The rebellion is being led by factions/tribes that are sympathetic to Al Queda and their desire to restore the Caliphate by bringing about the 12th Imam.

I read the link. But al-Qaeda as Salafist Sunnis--they are all about Ibn Tamiyya (or what they think he is) and the supposed pre-Ottoman restoration of the Caliphate. The Twelvers are Shias. They don't do a Caliphate or Ibn Tamiyya. They want an Imamate. Except in very limited historical circumstances hundreds of years ago there is no overlap between those concepts. The Qaedans have attacked Iran several times and want to kill every last Shia. Assad is an Alawite, a member of the 10% minority that is allied with the Shia. That's why Iran supports Assad and al-Qaeda wants to destroy him. Yes they like to provoke superpowers like the USA and Russia. But they want to kill Shias, not help them. I don't know why you're mixing them up.

I'll tell you why, when you get right down to it, an Islamo

Christian nutter is an Islamo Christian nutter.  Tribes/factions/ allegiances...none of it matters.  The common denominator is that all of these are people still living in the 12th century and this planet has no room for their insanity.

Hey look, your paragraph is still true.
 
2013-08-26 09:39:49 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: So what is the difference between a chemical attack and a drone strike? Number of civilian casualties? Screw let the towel heads fight it out, the US has no business spending our blood and gold on that shiat hole.


Chemical weapons were banned because they are an equalizer, allowing smaller nations the chance to defend against the larger nations. That is unacceptable.

People killed with chemical weapons are just as dead as any others killed in war - like all of the Japanese and German civilians we deliberately burned in Tokyo and Dresden.
 
2013-08-26 09:41:12 PM  

Kit Fister: 21-7-b: Kit Fister: 21-7-b: You're going to have to see past the UN. Did you read the link i posted for you?

i did, and I'm not sure what relevance it has to the proposition of just staying the hell out of the entire region?

I posted the link because you claimed to be ignorant of the role of al qaeda in syria. The link gives more information about that. You didn't comment on it and still don't seem to want to

However, as it happens, the link concludes:

These initial reactions do not bode well for Jabhat Nusra's continued popularity. This leaves a brief window through which other more secular opposition groups may be able to assert a counter-authority if they are able to demonstrate the same level of operational effectiveness as Jabhat Nusra. This effectiveness also extends to civilian governance, as Jabhat Nusra is now also competitive in this space as well. The U.S. alongside the larger international community should look to capitalize on the potential backlash and empower a force that will be able to compete with Jabhat Nusra. The recent announcements underscore the growing confidence of radical and jihadist elements fighting in Syria, and provide a glimpse of what could be the future for Syria if more is not done to cultivate a moderate alternative.

Which, as it turns out, should also inform your understanding of one part of the case for intervention. I suppose the reality is that it is just one more thing for you to ignore

The conflict has waged for two and a half years and yet you thought Iran was backing the rebels, who you thought were all Al Qaeda. You are obviously totally disinterested in the conflict and geopolitics - that seems irrefutable - and just want to ignore it. Why don't you just say that rather than acting as though you have anything to contribute beyond "I'm Kit Fister, I have no interest in Syria or world affairs, and I think America shouldn't get involved in these things." It's a perfectly legitimate position to hold

Fair enough. My question to you, then, is whether it is worth the lives and treasure for us to go in and support the rebels, ensuring this group is taken care of as well, or is it more important that the US remain out of it for the well being of our nation?

I am disinterested in this conflict, and even more so know a lot of soldiers farked up by our last wars who are the human face of what happens when you attack for no good reason.

In this case, I don't think our intervention, outside of as part of a UN force perhaps, is worth the cost for us.

Then again, this whole thing is shaping up to be everything we said Iraq was. So, maybe I'm wrong.


Cost of iraq was over 1 trillion dollars, cost of libya was under 1 billion - that is less than 0.1%. Libya didn't fark up any soldiers either. That's a huge difference and means that intervention can fall anywhere on a huge scale. Claiming America should do nothing because of Iraq is stupidly simplistic
 
2013-08-26 09:57:54 PM  

trenon462: Wise_Guy: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: dr_blasto: OK, then. I guess I'll just stick with what we actually have evidence to support.

Sure, facts. *chortle*......It is a fact nothing was found in Iraq. It is also a fact a large convoy of trucks left Iraq and went to Syria as we ginned up the invasion. I'm sure it was just food and t-shirts. I can't ask you to prove a negative, I only have my suspicions and some extremely interesting coincidences. It's ok, call me a nut. I don't care.  The Sarin came from somewhere, close. That is also a fact.

Sarin has a shelf life measured in weeks.

That's why it is stored as a binary weapon-- the two parts are mixed only when it is to be deployed.

If I'm reading the wiki article right, even the precursors have short shelf lives.


I'm no chemical weapons expert, but from what I can tell the compounds are stable.  One of them is basically rubbing alcohol, the other-- Methylphosphonyl difluoride-- is highly corrosive, like battery acid, but it too is stable.
 
2013-08-26 09:58:25 PM  

jaybeezey: I think this the thread where everyone is tired of this shiat an realizes that there is no "win" in this action for the US.

US Gets involved and Syrian Army manages a win. Assad still in power, Syrian leaders hate US. Russia looks like King shiat of fark Island. The US tax payers lose.

US gets involved And rebels win. AlQueda steamrolls any sane faction of the FSA and installs new Islamic Regime and Syrian Leaders Hate US. The US taxpayers lose.

It's like choosing side in a knife fight between a rapist and a pedophile.


Exactly. This.

There is no winning this if we get involved. The only justification for doing anything now is to save face after the president has set his red lines and they have been stepped over. That's not a good enough reason for me. It's just as bad as Bush going into Iraq to kill the guy who tried to kill his daddy.

The point where we should get involved is when it actually involves us either directly or indirectly through our allies being attacked. Until then let them sort it all out internally.

tirob: Do you think that Assad is necessarily a rational actor these days? The man has after all been under a huge amount of pressure for the past two years.


He has been "Winning" the civil war in the past 3 months or so. He had no reason to use chemical attacks. WMD's are last ditch weapons precisely because of the possible consequences like the one being discussed in this very thread. Unless he and his advisers have gone completely insane, of which there is no supporting evidence, he and his advisers all know this.

Using WMD's is a game changer and you don't change the game when you are winning. That has worked exactly once in history and it was on a MUCH larger scale than this.
 
2013-08-26 10:01:08 PM  

Wise_Guy: I'm no chemical weapons expert, but from what I can tell the compounds are stable.



FWIW the Wikipedia article on Sarin contradicts this. And I am also not an expert.
 
2013-08-26 10:02:27 PM  
Hey. You.

Yeah, you.

Could you do me a favor and look at a map?

See that part where the three greenish-yellow blobs meet up?

That's the Middle East.

The blob things are continents. They're kind of important.

So, a region where three of them join together is kind of important.

The capital of Syria has been inhabited since the invention of agriculture, and was a major stop on the Silk Road, the most important cultural crossroads in the history of everything ever that ever was, ever.

And please note that the configuration of the Earth's landmasses have not changed more than a few dozen yards in all that time.

Syria is incredibly important. Unlike mountainous Afghanistan, spillover from Syria will destabilize the entire region. And Syria is on the Mediterranean, right on Europe's doorstep. It was a rapidly-modernizing, vibrant, uncharacteristically secular place. Letting the conflict continue is simply NOT. AN. OPTION.

Let me repeat.

NOT. AN. OPTION.

Too many negative variables are at play to allow this to continue. In a global economy, this kind of shiat hits everyone's fans.

We will not be alone. The entirety of Europe opposes Assad, and there are secular rebels in Syria. For the moment.

This will be unpleasant. The unfortunate parallels with the Iraq war are grating.

But simply because it's in the Middle East doesn't mean we can ignore it. The world no longer allows any country to take its ball and go home. International politics is too complex for temper tantrums.

Everyone saying "Oh look, it's another war in the Middle East over WMDs; it's obviously bullshiat and we should ignore it" is simply advertising their lack of integrative complexity and complete failure to grasp nuance.
 
2013-08-26 10:05:23 PM  

Radioactive Ass: jaybeezey: I think this the thread where everyone is tired of this shiat an realizes that there is no "win" in this action for the US.

US Gets involved and Syrian Army manages a win. Assad still in power, Syrian leaders hate US. Russia looks like King shiat of fark Island. The US tax payers lose.

US gets involved And rebels win. AlQueda steamrolls any sane faction of the FSA and installs new Islamic Regime and Syrian Leaders Hate US. The US taxpayers lose.

It's like choosing side in a knife fight between a rapist and a pedophile.

Exactly. This.

There is no winning this if we get involved. The only justification for doing anything now is to save face after the president has set his red lines and they have been stepped over. That's not a good enough reason for me. It's just as bad as Bush going into Iraq to kill the guy who tried to kill his daddy.

The point where we should get involved is when it actually involves us either directly or indirectly through our allies being attacked. Until then let them sort it all out internally.

tirob: Do you think that Assad is necessarily a rational actor these days? The man has after all been under a huge amount of pressure for the past two years.

He has been "Winning" the civil war in the past 3 months or so. He had no reason to use chemical attacks. WMD's are last ditch weapons precisely because of the possible consequences like the one being discussed in this very thread. Unless he and his advisers have gone completely insane, of which there is no supporting evidence, he and his advisers all know this.

Using WMD's is a game changer and you don't change the game when you are winning. That has worked exactly once in history and it was on a MUCH larger scale than this.


that's not entirely true, if you consider sarin and mustard gas such weapons.

saddam used chemical weapons and killed thousands of iranians, and thousands of kurds in his own country.
do you know who helped him, knowing he was going to use chemical weapons? yup, the US.
 
2013-08-26 10:05:54 PM  
omnibus_necanda_sunt:

Everyone saying "Oh look, it's another war in the Middle East over WMDs; it's obviously bullshiat and we should ignore it" is simply advertising their lack of integrative complexity and complete failure to grasp nuance.

No. We're the ones who learn from your foolish mistakes.
 
2013-08-26 10:07:55 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: oldfarthenry: Yes - only a monster would poison-gas his citizens. Let's humanely bomb the f**k out of them instead!

Ding!

What can we possible hope might be accomplished by air strikes?


Ummm... people will be killed in a place where absolutely everybody who is old enough to walk is our enemy?

(just sayin'... I imagine that's the cold-blooded view that's kept us from doing much about this so far)
 
2013-08-26 10:08:26 PM  
Apik0r0s: 

People killed with chemical weapons are just as dead as any others killed in war.

Absolutely.  Screw 'em.
 
2013-08-26 10:11:12 PM  

trenon462: Wise_Guy: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: dr_blasto: OK, then. I guess I'll just stick with what we actually have evidence to support.

Sure, facts. *chortle*......It is a fact nothing was found in Iraq. It is also a fact a large convoy of trucks left Iraq and went to Syria as we ginned up the invasion. I'm sure it was just food and t-shirts. I can't ask you to prove a negative, I only have my suspicions and some extremely interesting coincidences. It's ok, call me a nut. I don't care.  The Sarin came from somewhere, close. That is also a fact.

Sarin has a shelf life measured in weeks.

That's why it is stored as a binary weapon-- the two parts are mixed only when it is to be deployed.

If I'm reading the wiki article right, even the precursors have short shelf lives.


That's why you refrigerate them. Every 5 degrees Celsius cooler doubles their shelf life.

Under anhydrous and anoxic conditions they can last for years.
 
2013-08-26 10:13:24 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: The entirety of Europe opposes Assad


Then let them go in if it's that important to them. Not us. Let them spend their money and blood on it. Not us. Syria has done nothing to us that I'm aware of and certainly nothing of great importance. Some of the rebels are affiliated with people who actually have done something to us, perhaps you recall those buildings falling down. If we help anyone it should never be them. Never in a million years.

Giving aid to a known enemy is the very definition of treason and is certainly an impeachable offense. Obama should be staying as far away as possible from getting involved this whole mess outside of perhaps being a part of negotiating a peace agreement of some kind.
 
2013-08-26 10:16:32 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Then let them go in if it's that important to them. Not us. Let them spend their money and blood on it. Not us. Syria has done nothing to us that I'm aware of and certainly nothing of great importance. Some of the rebels are affiliated with people who actually have done something to us, perhaps you recall those buildings falling down. If we help anyone it should never be them. Never in a million years.


Ignoring my position on military involvement in the region you are aware that there is a civilian population there in addition to Assad's forces and the Rebels, right?
 
2013-08-26 10:16:33 PM  
Remember, we can trust our media to inform us of the facts involved here.
www-tc.pbs.org
 
2013-08-26 10:20:12 PM  

bwilson27: omnibus_necanda_sunt:

Everyone saying "Oh look, it's another war in the Middle East over WMDs; it's obviously bullshiat and we should ignore it" is simply advertising their lack of integrative complexity and complete failure to grasp nuance.

No. We're the ones who learn from your foolish mistakes.


And what have you learned? That attacking a country on a false premise against the advice of the global community is a bad idea? Good, because that is not in any way related to the circumstances we're facing.

Also, I doubt you know what integrative complexity even is. Using a boilerplate phrase for your response is not exactly a stellar demonstration of it.
 
2013-08-26 10:20:56 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: NOT. AN. OPTION.

Too many negative variables are at play to allow this to continue. In a global economy, this kind of shiat hits everyone's fans.

We will not be alone. The entirety of Europe opposes Assad, and there are secular rebels in Syria. For the moment.

This will be unpleasant. The unfortunate parallels with the Iraq war are grating.

But simply because it's in the Middle East doesn't mean we can ignore it. The world no longer allows any country to take its ball and go home. International politics is too complex for temper tantrums.

Everyone saying "Oh look, it's another war in the Middle East over WMDs; it's obviously bullshiat and we should ignore it" is simply advertising their lack of integrative complexity and complete failure to grasp nuance.



So... Vote Likud?
 
2013-08-26 10:21:39 PM  

OgreMagi: How about we just sit this one out.  I mean completely sit it out.  Don't supply arms to either side.  Don't send a missle against anyone.  Don't even condemn anyone.  Do fark all nothing.  When asked about it, our only response is, "not our problem."

Because every time we try to help we end up with a bunch of major assholes in power who hate us so much that they supply bombs to terrorists to use against us.  Fark 'em.  Let them kill each other off, then maybe someone more peaceful will move into the now empty county.


We can't resist the temptation to prove to the world that we're the only ones who deserve to run it. We're ideologically bound - nay, compelled - to do so.
 
2013-08-26 10:21:43 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.



So help Al Qaeda and Hamas? This is why we need to stay the fark out of this thing. There is no good side in this.
 
2013-08-26 10:23:42 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: And Syria is on the Mediterranean, right on Europe's doorstep.


LMAO, now we're in it to protect Europe from Syria? WTF?

You know what doorstep is even closer to Syria than Europe's?
 
2013-08-26 10:23:47 PM  

Radioactive Ass: omnibus_necanda_sunt: The entirety of Europe opposes Assad

Then let them go in if it's that important to them. Not us. Let them spend their money and blood on it. Not us. Syria has done nothing to us that I'm aware of and certainly nothing of great importance. Some of the rebels are affiliated with people who actually have done something to us, perhaps you recall those buildings falling down. If we help anyone it should never be them. Never in a million years.

Giving aid to a known enemy is the very definition of treason and is certainly an impeachable offense. Obama should be staying as far away as possible from getting involved this whole mess outside of perhaps being a part of negotiating a peace agreement of some kind.


You realize the reason Al Qaeda was even able to establish a presence there in competition with the Free Syrian Army is because we stood by and let Assad's men bash children's heads in with shovels for two and a half years?

And you do realize that letting the conflict go on lets Al Qaeda build goodwill by appearing to be "the good guys," right?

If it weren't for this, they'd still be known among Muslims as "those assholes who kill other Muslims."

Now, they're "freedom fighters."
 
2013-08-26 10:24:43 PM  

Popular Opinion: that's not entirely true, if you consider sarin and mustard gas such weapons.

saddam used chemical weapons and killed thousands of iranians, and thousands of kurds in his own country.
do you know who helped him, knowing he was going to use chemical weapons? yup, the US.


And France, and Russia\CCCP. Those guys supplied a hell of a lot more weaponry to Iraq than we did. We sold ~$500 million dollars worth of dual use tech to them. A small part of that was chemical arms related such as tubing but far more of it were things like computers, machining equipment and so on. Our contribution to Iraq's weaponry was right around 2%. The rest they got from others who were more than happy to arm them for oil money. Cases in point: the attack on the USS Stark was carried out by a French made fighter using a French made missile. The tanks that we destroyed on the "Road of death" were all Soviet made as were the RADAR systems we obliterated. The claim that we armed Iraq is weak and denies reality.
 
2013-08-26 10:27:29 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: TuteTibiImperes: Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.


So help Al Qaeda and Hamas? This is why we need to stay the fark out of this thing. There is no good side in this.


THERE ARE FARKING SECULAR REBELS.

DOING NOTHING IS THE BEST WAY TO HELP AL QAEDA.
 
2013-08-26 10:28:02 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: trenon462: Wise_Guy: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: dr_blasto: OK, then. I guess I'll just stick with what we actually have evidence to support.

Sure, facts. *chortle*......It is a fact nothing was found in Iraq. It is also a fact a large convoy of trucks left Iraq and went to Syria as we ginned up the invasion. I'm sure it was just food and t-shirts. I can't ask you to prove a negative, I only have my suspicions and some extremely interesting coincidences. It's ok, call me a nut. I don't care.  The Sarin came from somewhere, close. That is also a fact.

Sarin has a shelf life measured in weeks.

That's why it is stored as a binary weapon-- the two parts are mixed only when it is to be deployed.

If I'm reading the wiki article right, even the precursors have short shelf lives.

That's why you refrigerate them. Every 5 degrees Celsius cooler doubles their shelf life.

Under anhydrous and anoxic conditions they can last for years.


Still no evidence Saddam trucked them over to Syria. There was no evidence Iraq had existing chemical weapons factories, the trucks Powell described were never found and the likelyhood that any nasties owned by Saddam were created before Desert Storm.

Even under ideal conditions, 20 years is a long time for any of that stuff, although I'm not certain that this attack has been identified as sarin.

Getting to the original point regarding Saddam shipping his "WMD" to Syria: even considering their hate for the west, Iran was never going to support Saddam-given their close relationship, Syria had no reason to operate on their own. Syria surely wasn't going to take any risks given their storied history with that bastard leading all the way back to his takeover of Iraq up to when they joined GHW Bush's coalition for Desert Storm.

Some people want, so badly, to have the neocon worldview vindicated that they'll believe anything. Even after a decade goes by and still no evidence in support of the actions of GW Bush's administration, they will still cling to just about any thread so they don't feel as used or cheated.
 
2013-08-26 10:29:14 PM  
Radioactive Ass: .

tirob: Do you think that Assad is necessarily a rational actor these days? The man has after all been under a huge amount of pressure for the past two years.

He has been "Winning" the civil war in the past 3 months or so. He had no reason to use chemical attacks. WMD's are last ditch weapons precisely because of the possible consequences like the one being discussed in this very thread. Unless he and his advisers have gone completely insane, of which there is no supporting evidence, he and his advisers all know this.

Using WMD's is a game changer and you don't change the game when you are winning. That has worked exactly once in history and it was on a MUCH larger scale than this.


Not so sure I agree that chemical weapons have historically only been used as a last resort.  The first large-scale use of poison gas during WWI was by Germany in April/May 1915, at what became known as the Second Battle of Ypres.  At the time, Germany, while it was in some trouble, was in no danger of immediate defeat.  The use of chemical weapons by Germany was just as shocking then as their use would be today, and the Entente protested that the Germans were violating international law.  This notwithstanding, the Entente itself began using poison gas later that year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I

I think we're both speculating when it comes to Assad's state of mind.  And BTW, I'm actually still hoping that this doesn't turn out to be what it appears to me to look like.
 
2013-08-26 10:29:14 PM  

BigChad: [719x524 from http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/156060.jpg image 719x524]


Yeah, because something big enough to to create a crater approx 3600 km wide would destroy all life as we know it across the whole planet.

Point of reference the Chicxulub crater, the one credited with causing the last great extinction (ie the dinosaurs) was only a mere 180km wide
 
2013-08-26 10:35:35 PM  

Fjornir: Ignoring my position on military involvement in the region you are aware that there is a civilian population there in addition to Assad's forces and the Rebels, right?


Yes, of course. They are not our problem. I know that that sounds cold hearted but they really are not our problem. I'd be fine with parking a hospital ship off of their coast and helping them. I'd be fine with air dropping food and medical supplies to them. I would not be fine with bombing them, which by the way is exactly what we would be doing if we get involved.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You realize the reason Al Qaeda was even able to establish a presence there in competition with the Free Syrian Army is because we stood by and let Assad's men bash children's heads in with shovels for two and a half years?

And you do realize that letting the conflict go on lets Al Qaeda build goodwill by appearing to be "the good guys," right?

If it weren't for this, they'd still be known among Muslims as "those assholes who kill other Muslims."

Now, they're "freedom fighters."


The likes of AQ do the same and worse. Stoning to death a woman for getting raped? AQ. Burning down a school full of little girls because they were outraged that they were being taught? AQ. Sorry. if I have to pick between douchebag and turd sammich I'll pick douchebag. At least I won't have to eat it.

Please take note that I have no love for Assad. It's just that I have even less love for the alternative.
 
2013-08-26 10:38:20 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: that's not entirely true, if you consider sarin and mustard gas such weapons.

saddam used chemical weapons and killed thousands of iranians, and thousands of kurds in his own country.
do you know who helped him, knowing he was going to use chemical weapons? yup, the US.

And France, and Russia\CCCP. Those guys supplied a hell of a lot more weaponry to Iraq than we did. We sold ~$500 million dollars worth of dual use tech to them. A small part of that was chemical arms related such as tubing but far more of it were things like computers, machining equipment and so on. Our contribution to Iraq's weaponry was right around 2%. The rest they got from others who were more than happy to arm them for oil money. Cases in point: the attack on the USS Stark was carried out by a French made fighter using a French made missile. The tanks that we destroyed on the "Road of death" were all Soviet made as were the RADAR systems we obliterated. The claim that we armed Iraq is weak and denies reality.


i don't think i am the one in denial.
we helped build the oil infrastructure that funded his army. the us adminstrations are as culpable for the atrocities under that regime as anyone. the higher ups knew exactly what they were doing and traded lives for cheap oil and the upper hand over the soviets in the region.
the fact that we gave direct intel to saddam about iranian troop buildups that helped iraq survive (using preemptive chemical attacks) says as much as anything, given that we knew what he was going to do when we told him.
 
2013-08-26 10:41:15 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Fjornir: Ignoring my position on military involvement in the region you are aware that there is a civilian population there in addition to Assad's forces and the Rebels, right?

Yes, of course. They are not our problem. I know that that sounds cold hearted but they really are not our problem. I'd be fine with parking a hospital ship off of their coast and helping them. I'd be fine with air dropping food and medical supplies to them. I would not be fine with bombing them, which by the way is exactly what we would be doing if we get involved.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You realize the reason Al Qaeda was even able to establish a presence there in competition with the Free Syrian Army is because we stood by and let Assad's men bash children's heads in with shovels for two and a half years?

And you do realize that letting the conflict go on lets Al Qaeda build goodwill by appearing to be "the good guys," right?

If it weren't for this, they'd still be known among Muslims as "those assholes who kill other Muslims."

Now, they're "freedom fighters."

The likes of AQ do the same and worse. Stoning to death a woman for getting raped? AQ. Burning down a school full of little girls because they were outraged that they were being taught? AQ. Sorry. if I have to pick between douchebag and turd sammich I'll pick douchebag. At least I won't have to eat it.

Please take note that I have no love for Assad. It's just that I have even less love for the alternative.


Not all of the rebels are Al Qaeda.  Once Assad is gone if fanatical Muslims and Al Qaeda manage to take control there's nothing stopping us from going back to bomb them as well.
 
2013-08-26 10:42:53 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: THERE ARE FARKING SECULAR REBELS.

DOING NOTHING IS THE BEST WAY TO HELP AL QAEDA.


No. Bombing Assad is the best way to help AQ. The secular rebels should have refused to be involved with AQ in any way and let that be known from the start. History shows us again and again that allowing poisonous elements into an organization of any type eventually leads to that poison taking over the organization. Unless the secular rebels are going to literally kill the AQ elements in their ranks after they win then no matter what I cannot support them, and I don't see that happening. I was behind the rebels until AQ joined them, then I decided that letting Assad be Assad was the better choice in the long run.
 
2013-08-26 10:43:39 PM  

dr_blasto: Some people want, so badly, to have the neocon worldview vindicated that they'll believe anything. Even after a decade goes by and still no evidence in support of the actions of GW Bush's administration, they will still cling to just about any thread so they don't feel as used or cheated.


For the mindset that identifies as "conservative", nothing makes them more certain of something they believe than proof that it is wrong. Just look at how certain Southern Evangelicals are of the Prosperity Gospel and American War Jesus, despite the red words in their own Bible.
 
2013-08-26 10:43:39 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Radioactive Ass: Fjornir: Ignoring my position on military involvement in the region you are aware that there is a civilian population there in addition to Assad's forces and the Rebels, right?

Yes, of course. They are not our problem. I know that that sounds cold hearted but they really are not our problem. I'd be fine with parking a hospital ship off of their coast and helping them. I'd be fine with air dropping food and medical supplies to them. I would not be fine with bombing them, which by the way is exactly what we would be doing if we get involved.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: You realize the reason Al Qaeda was even able to establish a presence there in competition with the Free Syrian Army is because we stood by and let Assad's men bash children's heads in with shovels for two and a half years?

And you do realize that letting the conflict go on lets Al Qaeda build goodwill by appearing to be "the good guys," right?

If it weren't for this, they'd still be known among Muslims as "those assholes who kill other Muslims."

Now, they're "freedom fighters."

The likes of AQ do the same and worse. Stoning to death a woman for getting raped? AQ. Burning down a school full of little girls because they were outraged that they were being taught? AQ. Sorry. if I have to pick between douchebag and turd sammich I'll pick douchebag. At least I won't have to eat it.

Please take note that I have no love for Assad. It's just that I have even less love for the alternative.

Not all of the rebels are Al Qaeda.  Once Assad is gone if fanatical Muslims and Al Qaeda manage to take control there's nothing stopping us from going back to bomb them as well.


and how well has that worked in afghanistan?
 
2013-08-26 10:45:16 PM  
It's an unfortunate reality. Syria is too big a mess to just let it sit.

It's like diarrhea in the living room. Someone has to clean it up. Nobody wants to get near it, but it isn't going to disappear all by itself, and it'd be pretty childish to just let a case of beer shiats drive you out of your own living room.

I oppose military action in Iran with all my heart. But Syria is different. Syria is madness and malevolence and pain, and its spread won't be stopped by invisible lines on maps.

On top of that, Syria would be far more accessible than Iran, given it sits on the Mediterranean. We wouldn't be stuck demining Hormuz or negotiating with Kyrgyzstan just to ship in the MREs.

I don't feel American boots on the ground or a long taxpayer-funded nation-building scheme should be necessary. Syria is so close to Europe that they will be essentially forced to chip in, at least diplomatically.

This will be harder than Libya, but equally necessary, if not moreso. And infinitely easier than a quixotic foray into Iran.
 
2013-08-26 10:45:43 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: we stood by and let Assad's men bash children's heads in with shovels for two and a half years?


And the Rape Rooms, don't forget the Rape Rooms. And Poland.
 
Displayed 50 of 485 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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