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  
•       •       •

19519 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
 
2013-08-27 01:07:01 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: We do everything we can to avoid shooting civilians. We could have locked Iraq down years ago if the Army had a go-ahead to just shoot anyone who looked middle-eastern. We've taken a lot of casualties and prolonged the rebuilding because we've been trying to avoid civilian deaths where we can.

Mind you, I disagree with the whole concept of nation building in the middle east. We should've gotten out right after we smashed the Iraqi military, or at the least after we captures Sadam. Anything we build they'll destroy, and any systems we put into place they'll pervert. It's not worth the time or trouble, and I suspect a lot of it was done to funnel cash into the hands of defense contractors and businesses with an inside track. That, I'm 100% against.


i'm not gonna pretend any war like this can be free of mistakes and accidents.
i just don't go along with the hypocrisy.
do you think our own government would take anything off the table to survive?
we have done worse.
as i pointed out earlier, we helped saddam gas tens of thousands of iranians, when it suited our interests.
 
2013-08-27 01:20:12 AM  
<sigh> Here we go again...
 
2013-08-27 01:24:26 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: No, we really don't, they don't put people on the kill list without evidence, and footage from the helicopters over Iraq has shown the crews being very careful about children in the area.


I didn't say anything about a kill list? Can you not read? Reactionary finger syndrome, found in Republicans and often involves a cousin or parishoner's snatch.

Here's a NYT cite, via National Review:

"It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. "Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization - innocent neighbors don't hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs," said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama's trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the "single digits" - and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it "guilt by association" that has led to "deceptive" estimates of civilian casualties."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/301149/print
 
2013-08-27 01:46:02 AM  

Apik0r0s: TuteTibiImperes: No, we really don't, they don't put people on the kill list without evidence, and footage from the helicopters over Iraq has shown the crews being very careful about children in the area.

I didn't say anything about a kill list? Can you not read? Reactionary finger syndrome, found in Republicans and often involves a cousin or parishoner's snatch.

Here's a NYT cite, via National Review:

"It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. "Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization - innocent neighbors don't hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs," said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama's trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the "single digits" - and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it "guilt by association ...


Giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt regarding how we count civilian casualties is a far cry from treating any male over 15 as a military target, which is what you implied.
 
2013-08-27 01:56:35 AM  
I'm far, far, FAR more concerned with wealth inequity in our own country -lets deal with that first.

fark Syria.

Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.


Eisenhower was a hipster that didnt know shiat?
 
2013-08-27 02:18:34 AM  

Apik0r0s: It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.


I'm not sure that this would be all that different from how casualties have always been recorded. Even going after unambiguous military targets in a conventional war (a base or camp for instance), there will always be a chance that civilians will be there for whatever reason, and that therefore the casualty count will conceivably included some civilians. However, in cases where the identities of the people killed can't be immediately confirmed, I don't think any government will just assume those cases to be civilians just because they could be civilians.

I suppose an argument could be made that there should be a third label apart from "combatant" and "civilian" (just call it "unknown", perhaps) for the sake of having more precise categorizing, but this question doesn't really have anything to do with the issue of civilian casualties per se.
 
2013-08-27 02:19:21 AM  

Frederick: Eisenhower was a hipster that didnt know shiat?


Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. When you can find a hipster with his level of knowledge then we can talk. Until then they are parroting words without a deep understanding of what they mean.
 
2013-08-27 02:20:13 AM  
TuteTibiImperes: Giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt regarding how we count civilian casualties is a far cry from treating any male over 15 as a military target, which is what you implied.

This isn't "giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt", it's giving carte blanche to commanders and drone operators to kill anything male. It is hiding the collateral damage. It is inflating the effectiveness of our ops. It is breeding a whole new generation of people across the globe who want to burn my country down.
 
2013-08-27 02:24:33 AM  
Biological Ali: ... but this question doesn't really have anything to do with the issue of civilian casualties per se.

I beg to differ. It effectively eliminates most of what would end up being considered civilian casualties.
 
2013-08-27 02:37:22 AM  

Popular Opinion: as i pointed out earlier, we helped saddam gas tens of thousands of iranians, when it suited our interests.


No we didn't.  We had no participation in that mess.  Not one bit.  We did not provide any intelligence when he gassed the Kurds.  We did not provide materials of any sort.  The closest we came to any help was when an American company illegally sold some electronics to him and they got prosecuted for doing that.
 
2013-08-27 02:44:31 AM  

Apik0r0s: Biological Ali: ... but this question doesn't really have anything to do with the issue of civilian casualties per se.

I beg to differ. It effectively eliminates most of what would end up being considered civilian casualties.


The kinds of deaths in question have never, as far as I know, been considered civilian casualties just because they might be civilians. If, following an routine attack on a military target during a conventional war, some of the bodies at the scene could not be identified right away, what would they be classified as? Marked down as members of the targeted force perhaps due to their proximity, or maybe put down as "unknown" if the record-keeping is more precise, but I know of no counting tradition that would consider them to be civilian unless proven otherwise.

The nature of the places where these strikes are being carried out (Pakistan's tribal areas in particular) are such that there will inevitably be more "unknown" bodies due to the poor record-keeping and unreliability of local media reports, but this doesn't have any direct bearing on the issue of civilian casualties itself. It's a separate issue.
 
2013-08-27 02:47:20 AM  

Apik0r0s: TuteTibiImperes: Giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt regarding how we count civilian casualties is a far cry from treating any male over 15 as a military target, which is what you implied.

This isn't "giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt", it's giving carte blanche to commanders and drone operators to kill anything male. It is hiding the collateral damage. It is inflating the effectiveness of our ops. It is breeding a whole new generation of people across the globe who want to burn my country down.


Counting unknowns as militants does not mean that the military targets civilians.  Knowing that potential military age males won't be counted as civilian casualties doesn't mean that the military won't take every step available to make sure that known civilians aren't harmed.
 
2013-08-27 02:49:02 AM  

OgreMagi: Popular Opinion: as i pointed out earlier, we helped saddam gas tens of thousands of iranians, when it suited our interests.

No we didn't.  We had no participation in that mess.  Not one bit.  We did not provide any intelligence when he gassed the Kurds.  We did not provide materials of any sort.  The closest we came to any help was when an American company illegally sold some electronics to him and they got prosecuted for doing that.


it was 84-88, when we knew he was already using chemical weapons against the iranians.
he did gas the kurds a bit later, but didn't need the cia to tell him where the town was.
 
2013-08-27 03:12:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Counting unknowns as militants does not mean that the military targets civilians.


Right, only that they CAN.
 
2013-08-27 03:29:58 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Frederick: Eisenhower was a hipster that didnt know shiat?

Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. When you can find a hipster with his level of knowledge then we can talk. Until then they are parroting words without a deep understanding of what they mean.


So only a four star general former president -quite rational response.
 
2013-08-27 03:35:42 AM  
(ColinPowellyellowcake.jpg)
 
2013-08-27 03:44:19 AM  

ciberido: Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.


What someone who doesn't know shiat might look like.


Well Ike may have introduced it to the English speaking world but Bismarck would like a word with you.
 
2013-08-27 04:58:34 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Al Qaeda is using the uprising to further its own agenda. We need to ensure that our actions don't further their agenda. Done right, though, weakening Assad can also weaken Al Qaeda

Well now, there is the crux of the biscuit. The rebellion is clearly aligned to AQ. There is no doubt of that.  Assad is propped by Pooty Poot and Iran. 'Done right' in this case = doing nothing.  We can hope the rebels get in a few licks and take Assad out. And some other hat in the Syrian Military takes over and squashes the rebels and can appease the Islamo nutters long enough for some back room bargains. Sadly, our bargainer is Obama and he's not good at this.  Putin is. It's not like we held any sway before in Syria, but maybe the russians can talk some sense to these idiots.  Iran is basically checked by Israel. If Iran does anything outwardly agressive, the Jews will crash that crap, and Putin knows he can do nothing outwardly agressive about it.  Proxy v Proxy....

What does "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" mean?

Gee, too confusing huh? 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.
Read this.


Wrong. Al Queda is Sunni Islam, while the 12th Imam doctrine is Shia.
 
2013-08-27 06:49:41 AM  

Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.


That has been going around for a long time... its not new at all.  Also, the ones that I know also like to use the word "Military Welfare"... because apparently we don't need the military and all these wars are just made up, therefore anyone participating in the war is doing "make work", and anyone doing "make work" amounts to being on welfare.
 
2013-08-27 08:25:18 AM  
For those of you who say that the Syrian government would be above using chemical weapons in this war, I thought I'd leave this here.  It's a story about an attack by Syrian government forces on a place called Saraqeb, near Aleppo in northern Syria, on April 29 of this year.  Local people claimed that during the attack, personnel in a government helicopter dropped bombs that contained a poisonous gas.  Eight local people were taken to a nearby hospital around this time, all apparently suffering from nausea and breathing problems.  One of them died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22551892

There was a followup to this.  Blood and urine samples from five of the hospital patients were taken to a lab maintained by the DGA, the French military's arms-buying office.  Chemists in the lab said that the results of their tests indicated the presence of sarin in the urine of one patient and in the blood of two others.  I can't find this story in English, so everyone please pardon my French.  I'll translate.

Les prélèvements réalisés à la suite de l'attaque par un hélicoptère gouvernemental à Saraqeb (province d'Idlib), dans le nord du pays, le 29 avril, sont encore plus probants. Le métabolite de sarin a été identifé dans les urines d'une victime, et du sarin régénéré (c'est-à-dire à l'état pur), dans le sang de deux autres victimes, dont l'une à une concentration élevée (9,5 nanogrammes/millilitre).

Les prélèvements de Saraqeb concernent cinq victimes, dont l'une est morte : ils ont été effectués par l'équipe soignante d'un hôpital de la région d'Idlib et transmis aux services français le 4 mai, avant d'arriver au laboratoire le le 9 mai. Selon les experts, les prélèvements sanguins sont impossibles à falsifier, contrairement aux urines, qui peuvent éventuellement être manipulées.

"The samples taken after the attack on April 29 by a government helicopter in Saraqeb (Idlib province), in the northern part of the country, are more probative.  Metabolized sarin was identified in the urine of one victim, and regenerated sarin (that is to say, in its pure state) was identified in the blood of two of the other victims, in once case at a high level of concentration (9.5 nanograms per milliliter)

The Saraqeb samples were from five victims, one of whom died.  They were taken by medical staff at a hospital in the Idlib region and handed over to the French government on May 4, before arriving at the lab on May 9.  According to the experts, blood samples are impossible to fake, unlike urine samples, which can at times be tampered with."

http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/06/04/laurent-fabiu s- confirme-l-utilisation-de-gaz-sarin-en-syrie_3424140_3218.html
 
2013-08-27 09:03:24 AM  

JustTheTip: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Al Qaeda is using the uprising to further its own agenda. We need to ensure that our actions don't further their agenda. Done right, though, weakening Assad can also weaken Al Qaeda

Well now, there is the crux of the biscuit. The rebellion is clearly aligned to AQ. There is no doubt of that.  Assad is propped by Pooty Poot and Iran. 'Done right' in this case = doing nothing.  We can hope the rebels get in a few licks and take Assad out. And some other hat in the Syrian Military takes over and squashes the rebels and can appease the Islamo nutters long enough for some back room bargains. Sadly, our bargainer is Obama and he's not good at this.  Putin is. It's not like we held any sway before in Syria, but maybe the russians can talk some sense to these idiots.  Iran is basically checked by Israel. If Iran does anything outwardly agressive, the Jews will crash that crap, and Putin knows he can do nothing outwardly agressive about it.  Proxy v Proxy....

What does "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" mean?

Gee, too confusing huh? 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.
Read this.

Wrong. Al Queda is Sunni Islam, while the 12th Imam doctrine is Shia.


sjmb.files.wordpress.com

One of the principle authors of that document is this jolly fellow. He's AQ's #1.

But thanks for playing.
 
2013-08-27 10:12:47 AM  

Carousel Beast: omnibus_necanda_sunt: 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.

It's ok because my side is in office, and it's all Bush's fault anyway.


FTFY.



 THIS!!

So funny to see the new "Hawks" backing THEIR side.
 
2013-08-27 10:29:35 AM  
There is a winning move here: destroy Assad's air force, antiaircraft defenses, and armored divisions, and supply the secular rebel factions with the latest intelligence on the movements of Assad's forces. If the secular rebels have the superior fighting ability, Al-Qaeda would have to either abandon the fight or lose their public-relations gains.

I'm against pumping more guns into the conflict on any side, but ammunition is expendable and we can always cut off shipments.

Supplying the rebels with communications gear is a low-risk proposition, because if it is appropriated by extremists, we would simply eavesdrop on their communications.

And if boots on the ground beyond the rebels themselves become necessary, the international community is more than willing to step up, provided we supply the ammunition, weaponry, and tactical support that makes killing us with old Soviet surplus so damned hard.
 
2013-08-27 10:34:39 AM  

21-7-b: 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


Yes, because Libya was both not a war, and was not a situation where boots on the ground might be needed. Can you say for sure that Syria is going to be the same?

As for saying that we should do nothing because of Iraq, I'm not saying that Iraq and our failure there is the reason we should do nothing -- and claiming that that's the case is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.

What I'm saying, have been saying, and will continue to say is this:  We blew trillions on iraq and afghanistan. our engagements there were costly in terms of the human resources as well as the physical resources needed to fight an engagement. We're still cleaning up and getting our troops out of there. Further, we can't afford to precipitate a war with Russia or China, and if we get involved in Syria, it very well could be a much more intensive conflict than Libya simply because you're not talking about fighting a person with the same mental capacity as Daffy Duck, you're talking about fighting a well funded military with large multinational support behind it. It would be about the same as going into Israel with the US backing it.

Bombing sites identified by the UN as holding chemical weapons could work. Providing support to a UN resolution and/or coalition in terms of bombs, planes, and logistical support could work.

But a full-scale engagement in Syria would be stupid, and provide us no net benefit but further pissing off Russia, and antagonizing China, our major Financial backers. (I'm not convinced, however, at this point, that China isn't being really really farking smart by making everyone financially beholden to them, thus conquering the globe without firing a shot)
 
2013-08-27 10:58:01 AM  
Anyone know if Syria has any Russian or Iranian supercavitating torpedoes?
 
2013-08-27 11:10:32 AM  

Giltric: Anyone know if Syria has any Russian or Iranian supercavitating torpedoes?


Iran hand a few prototypes a few years ago.  It wouldn't surprise me if they have delivered a few to Syria by now.
 
2013-08-27 12:00:06 PM  
Damn, it is just really, I don't even have the words for it.

Depressing, I guess? Yes, depressing.

It's depressing that nobody understands the differences between this conflict and the last.

The international reaction is different. The geography is different. The situation on the ground is different. There's an actual opposition to the regime already in the open. And there are actual, serious consequences for inaction.

The war in Iraq was not justified simply because we took out a dictator, because the sectarian violence we sparked far outweighed anything Saddam was liable to cause.

This time, the civil war is already in full force. Assad is waging all-out war against his own people, complete with helicopters, bombs, tanks, airplanes, and in all likelihood nerve gas. He is not using "smart bombs" or precision munitions. His goal is to break the opposition, even if that means destroying their morale by killing their families.

Even in Egypt now and Iran in 2009, nobody blew up apartment buildings with high explosives just to make a point. The most recent guy who tried to run his citizens over with tanks is now dead. The only reason he's gone and Assad is still running a war is because of Russia.

Even before the Iraqi invasion, Clinton had already established no-fly zones to protect the Kurds. How is a no-fly zone in Syria an invalid proposition due to an ill-advised and completely unnecessary invasion of a different country by a different president for different "reasons" (in that case, total bullshiat)?

To reiterate, we would not be going block by block to smoke out insurgents. We would be firing missiles at tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, and SAM batteries. In other words, the exact thing our military excels at.

Yes, afterward there would be remnants of Al-Qaeda to clean up, but this time the "Coalition of the Willing" will include Italy, France, Britain, Germany, Spain, and most of the rest of the EU. Just because they don't have billion-dollar stealth fighters doesn't mean they can't contribute.

Is it cynical to say "Our last president farked up, so therefore we need Latvia to take up the slack so we don't get our asses handed to us in our next election?" Yes. But if it reduces the scale of the violence from "tanks and fighter jets versus guys in Toyotas and their families" to "assholes who actually need to know how to aim a rifle in order to kill anybody versus other assholes in the exact same position," that alone will be a massive step forward in the healing process.

Assad will never reestablish a peaceful government. It will wind up like Lebanon: a relatively modern country with a relatively well-developed economy that, after years and years of (perhaps uneasy but still present) peace suddenly collapsed into civil war and has never truly recovered. If there's one thing we need less of in the world, it's countries with so much promise collapsing into violence and driving their middle class away, perpetuating a cycle of unemployment and economic depression that leads to vast populations of young men with no higher prospect in life than martyrdom.

I am not Republican. I despise the current Republicans, and haven't respected them since the Gingrich revolution. While I do lean Democrat, I also am deeply, deeply disappointed in Obama, not only for his failure to hold banks to account, but for his complete lack of transparency on the issue of whisteblowers and leaks, as well as this marijuana dispensary raid nonsense.

I may lean Democrat at the moment, just like every other sane person on the planet, but Obama is no longer "my guy," if indeed he ever was.

I support intervention in Syria for the same reason I supported intervention in Libya, and this go-around Putin's homophobic pariah state is the only real opposition to intervention.

And stop talking about this as if it were some kind of "merchant of death" conspiracy. War may be good for certain kinds of business, but peace is good for every other kind of business, and they thus have more clout. Sprint can't sell their wireless plan to Syrians if all the cell towers have been blown up. It's in corporate America's interest to see everything smoothed out. Which brings me back to my
previous point:

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Even if there are several terrible things going on in the world at once and the only one you can get people to care about also happens to be on the shiatlist of some creepy manipulative bastards you despise, it doesn't make it wrong to try to help ameliorate the situation.


And yes, US involvement will escalate the situation, at least in the short run, with 100% certainty. The goal, however, is to eventually deescalate it. Assad's goal is to kill everyone who won't roll over and die quietly, and the rebel's goal is to see him deposed and much of his government dismantled. And at this point it's a near-certainty that even if he surrenders peacefully when they storm his bolthole, he will wind up getting "accidentally" shot just like Ghaddafi.

A nonintervention policy simply strengthens Al-Qaeda, who take the young men trapped in unemployment by stagnant economies kneecapped by sectarian violence and misgovernment and turn them into a weapon to bolster Al-Qaeda's reputation and simultaneously promote further violence, fueling the economic decline that drove unemployment to such ridiculous heights to begin with.
 
2013-08-27 12:09:23 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: And at this point it's a near-certainty that even if he surrenders peacefully when they storm his bolthole, he will wind up getting "accidentally" shot just like Ghaddafi.


Point being that if the rebels do start winning without our involvement, he will start tossing the nerve gas around like glitter at a pride parade. So escalation to the point of Syria becoming a failed state for the next quarter-century is guaranteed.
 
2013-08-27 12:10:43 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Damn, it is just really, I don't even have the words for it.

Depressing, I guess? Yes, depressing.

It's depressing that nobody understands the differences between this conflict and the last.

The international reaction is different. The geography is different. The situation on the ground is different. There's an actual opposition to the regime already in the open. And there are actual, serious consequences for inaction.

The war in Iraq was not justified simply because we took out a dictator, because the sectarian violence we sparked far outweighed anything Saddam was liable to cause.

This time, the civil war is already in full force. Assad is waging all-out war against his own people, complete with helicopters, bombs, tanks, airplanes, and in all likelihood nerve gas. He is not using "smart bombs" or precision munitions. His goal is to break the opposition, even if that means destroying their morale by killing their families.

Even in Egypt now and Iran in 2009, nobody blew up apartment buildings with high explosives just to make a point. The most recent guy who tried to run his citizens over with tanks is now dead. The only reason he's gone and Assad is still running a war is because of Russia.

Even before the Iraqi invasion, Clinton had already established no-fly zones to protect the Kurds. How is a no-fly zone in Syria an invalid proposition due to an ill-advised and completely unnecessary invasion of a different country by a different president for different "reasons" (in that case, total bullshiat)?

To reiterate, we would not be going block by block to smoke out insurgents. We would be firing missiles at tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, and SAM batteries. In other words, the exact thing our military excels at.

Yes, afterward there would be remnants of Al-Qaeda to clean up, but this time the "Coalition of the Willing" will include Italy, France, Britain, Germany, Spain, and most of the rest of the EU. Just because they don't have billion-dollar stealth f ...


You do realize that there are, in fact, cells of Islamic terrorists fighting in Syria to take out the Assad regime?

Al Qaeda is among these. If those farkers weren't around, I'd be less against intervention, but they are. Furthermore, the UN hasn't finished its job.
 
2013-08-27 12:34:53 PM  
And if we and NATO do go in, and Russia starts selling weapons to Assad, the political blowback will make passing their anti-gay law six months before the Olympics look like a decree of universal free pony ownership.
 
2013-08-27 12:46:30 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: And if we and NATO do go in, and Russia starts selling weapons to Assad, the political blowback will make passing their anti-gay law six months before the Olympics look like a decree of universal free pony ownership.


You need a new scorecard. Can't tell the pawns from the kings w/o a scorecard.
So far, King is still hidden, prolly castled long ago and not for your eyes.
 
2013-08-27 12:48:42 PM  

snocone: omnibus_necanda_sunt: And if we and NATO do go in, and Russia starts selling weapons to Assad, the political blowback will make passing their anti-gay law six months before the Olympics look like a decree of universal free pony ownership.

You need a new scorecard. Can't tell the pawns from the kings w/o a scorecard.
So far, King is still hidden, prolly castled long ago and not for your eyes.


At the end of the game, both the king and the pawn is put in the same box.
 
2013-08-27 12:50:22 PM  

Giltric: snocone: omnibus_necanda_sunt: And if we and NATO do go in, and Russia starts selling weapons to Assad, the political blowback will make passing their anti-gay law six months before the Olympics look like a decree of universal free pony ownership.

You need a new scorecard. Can't tell the pawns from the kings w/o a scorecard.
So far, King is still hidden, prolly castled long ago and not for your eyes.

At the end of the game, both the king and the pawn is put in the same box.


By the 1% that own the game.
 
2013-08-27 04:43:26 PM  

snocone: Giltric: snocone: omnibus_necanda_sunt: And if we and NATO do go in, and Russia starts selling weapons to Assad, the political blowback will make passing their anti-gay law six months before the Olympics look like a decree of universal free pony ownership.

You need a new scorecard. Can't tell the pawns from the kings w/o a scorecard.
So far, King is still hidden, prolly castled long ago and not for your eyes.

At the end of the game, both the king and the pawn is put in the same box.

By the 1% that own the game.



Nice.
 
2013-08-27 05:13:02 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Damn, it is just really, I don't even have the words for it.

Depressing, I guess? Yes, depressing.

It's depressing that nobody understands the differences between this conflict and the last.

The international reaction is different. The geography is different. The situation on the ground is different. There's an actual opposition to the regime already in the open. And there are actual, serious consequences for inaction.

The war in Iraq was not justified simply because we took out a dictator, because the sectarian violence we sparked far outweighed anything Saddam was liable to cause.

This time, the civil war is already in full force. Assad is waging all-out war against his own people, complete with helicopters, bombs, tanks, airplanes, and in all likelihood nerve gas. He is not using "smart bombs" or precision munitions. His goal is to break the opposition, even if that means destroying their morale by killing their families.

Even in Egypt now and Iran in 2009, nobody blew up apartment buildings with high explosives just to make a point. The most recent guy who tried to run his citizens over with tanks is now dead. The only reason he's gone and Assad is still running a war is because of Russia.

Even before the Iraqi invasion, Clinton had already established no-fly zones to protect the Kurds. How is a no-fly zone in Syria an invalid proposition due to an ill-advised and completely unnecessary invasion of a different country by a different president for different "reasons" (in that case, total bullshiat)?

To reiterate, we would not be going block by block to smoke out insurgents. We would be firing missiles at tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, and SAM batteries. In other words, the exact thing our military excels at.

Yes, afterward there would be remnants of Al-Qaeda to clean up, but this time the "Coalition of the Willing" will include Italy, France, Britain, Germany, Spain, and most of the rest of the EU. Just because they don't have billion-dollar stealth f ...


If you want to go fight against Assad, fly on over grab a rifle, and start fighting. Not a single flippin person is going to have a problem with that.

But, it's not the job of the US to police other nations, nor to intervene in everyone else's war. They want to fight a revolution? fine. The UN wants to help? Fine. That does not mean that the US has to get involved, and it shouldn't.  Fix shiat here at home before you start talking about dumping any cash into activities abroad.
 
Displayed 35 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 »






Report