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  
•       •       •

19517 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 4:48 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



485 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-26 03:30:30 PM
What is not "undeniable" is who the fark actually used the WMD.
Since the rule of thumb is follow the cash, I'll go with the best funded, perennial fave, CIA.

begin
 
2013-08-26 03:31:16 PM
Okay, so let's see it then.
 
2013-08-26 03:33:12 PM
Nobel Peace prizes don't earn themselves
 
2013-08-26 03:39:18 PM
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.
 
2013-08-26 03:41:19 PM

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.


The Iraq where we are greeted as liberators?  Sign me up!
 
2013-08-26 03:42:31 PM
Yes - only a monster would poison-gas his citizens. Let's humanely bomb the f**k out of them instead!
 
2013-08-26 03:43:26 PM
Milton Berle?
 
2013-08-26 03:47:34 PM

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?
 
2013-08-26 03:50:06 PM

johnryan51: Milton Berle?


WC Fields, natch
 
2013-08-26 03:53:08 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?


Shock and Awe.

Followed by years of "WTF do we do now?" if past is precedent.
 
2013-08-26 03:56:04 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?


Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.
 
2013-08-26 03:56:34 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?


We de-clutter some military warehouses? We could use freecycle, but who knows whose hands stuff would end up in then.
 
2013-08-26 04:03:02 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.


Pretty much exactly what happened in Libya.
 
2013-08-26 04:03:14 PM
www.popularresistance.org

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.
 
2013-08-26 04:05:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.

Pretty much exactly what happened in Libya.


I'd say we handled Libya about as well as we could have.
 
2013-08-26 04:15:17 PM

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.


Air and missile, boots on the ground, drones, whatever. Anything we do militarily will probably ultimately kill, injure, and make refugees out of many multiples of the number of people Syria can do within itself. Cui bono?

/farking Gottschalks
 
2013-08-26 04:15:46 PM
dammit

Just ... dammit.
 
2013-08-26 04:17:15 PM
War should be a last result. It should be painful. It should require sacrifice. It should make you never want to fight one again and avoid it at all costs.

For these reasons, we'll simply use drones and hand out tax cuts. Cause that's America Post 9/11. Or, America Mark 2.
 
2013-08-26 04:24:35 PM
I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.
 
2013-08-26 04:26:03 PM
It doesn't concern us
 
2013-08-26 04:31:13 PM

basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.


The videos showed a whole bunch of dead people.
 
2013-08-26 04:31:21 PM
Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!
 
2013-08-26 04:41:03 PM
The world should just get it over with...gas that entire section of the globe, killing just about everyone. We can then have a global pity-party, stating it really sucked having to do it but it was necessary.
 
2013-08-26 04:46:22 PM

make me some tea: basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.

The videos showed a whole bunch of dead people.


Still want to know what kind of gas.
 
2013-08-26 04:49:55 PM

Mike_LowELL: Battle of Tours


I like it!
 
2013-08-26 04:51:42 PM

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


Libya
 
2013-08-26 04:52:57 PM

basemetal: make me some tea: basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.

The videos showed a whole bunch of dead people.

Still want to know what kind of gas.


We'd have a better idea if Syria didn't open fire on the UN Inspectors.

/Well past time for the "Peacekeepers" to make their mark
 
2013-08-26 04:53:40 PM

Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!


You forgot Benghazi, Benghazi, and Poland.
 
2013-08-26 04:53:45 PM

snocone: What is not "undeniable" is who the fark actually used the WMD.
Since the rule of thumb is follow the cash, I'll go with the best funded, perennial fave, CIA.

begin


I don't know.  The last time we went through this it was Tenet lying to Powell so he'd get in front of people to say it.  So historically, while the CIA was the spark of the popular support (fear) for the Iraq war, they're perfectly content to just lie about it.
 
2013-08-26 04:54:20 PM
It aint no easy thing being the World's Police Officer.
 
2013-08-26 04:54:43 PM
Wasn't there a chemical weapons attack in Syria earlier this year or last year that was claimed to have been conducted by Assad right off the bat only to have an actual investigation a few months later show the rebels conducted the attack?
 
2013-08-26 04:54:48 PM

cman: It doesn't concern us


yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.
 
2013-08-26 04:55:34 PM

Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!


And Ben Affleck.  You always forget him.
 
2013-08-26 04:55:38 PM
And if it turns out that the rebels also used them...?
 
2013-08-26 04:56:15 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.


What if Assad wins anyway in that scenario?

Then it just sound like prolonging the war for nothing gained (assuming you hope Assad looses).
 
2013-08-26 04:56:37 PM

Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!


Taxbongo?  I'm no fan of the man, but your point is greatly watered down when you resort to childish name-calling.
 
2013-08-26 04:56:44 PM
So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!
 
2013-08-26 04:56:56 PM
war is good for business

how many people do we need to kill so we can all be wealthy?
 
2013-08-26 04:56:58 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-08-26 04:57:13 PM
Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Remember the last time we went to war over WMDs in the mid-east?

AIPAC pays good money to keep your leaders on the string, it would be unfair were they to not earn that money by blowing a few thousand Syrian children into dust. They're just Arab animals, after all.
 
2013-08-26 04:57:16 PM
US wars are started with false flags and this will be the next one. This will keep people employed in America and is good for the military industrial complex.
 
2013-08-26 04:57:31 PM

Nadie_AZ: Mike_LowELL: Battle of Tours

I like it!


I dunno. I remember he used to have good insight on video game stuff. Then some time ago he turned into this. It kind of ruined any attempts at trolling he does for me, knowing he was once a legitimate poster. He should have created an alt.
 
2013-08-26 04:57:55 PM
www.hollywoodreporter.com

Let's just make sure that this douchebag didn't edit the interviews first.
 
2013-08-26 04:57:59 PM
Sure, subby, Saddam gassed people with chemicals supplied by Ronny Raygun.  W used this, amongst other opaque shiat thrown at the wall, minus the Raygun part, to attack Iraq 15 years later.

Kinda different from drawing a line, and then acting when that line is crossed.
 
2013-08-26 04:58:15 PM
Here you go, folks. The Smoking Gun Might Be a Mushroom Cloud.

Put your savings in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics. They're fixing to get their once every 2 to 4 year bailout from the government.
 
2013-08-26 04:58:29 PM

Disgruntled Goat: And if it turns out that the rebels also used them...?


The UN (backed by the US), should be enforcing a mandatory ceasefire on both sides, and killing any who don't comply.
 
2013-08-26 04:58:39 PM
ffftttwwwwwwwWWWWWWWW

HITLER!

/right?
 
2013-08-26 04:59:09 PM

Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Remember the last time we went to war over WMDs in the mid-east?

AIPAC pays good money to keep your leaders on the string, it would be unfair were they to not earn that money by blowing a few thousand Syrian children into dust. They're just Arab animals, after all.



8/10

This will get a few bites
 
2013-08-26 04:59:26 PM

darth_badger: US wars are started with false flags and this will be the next one. This will keep people employed in America and is good for the military industrial complex.


The only hope I have is that the stock market tanked immediately after Kerry's speech.   The American people don't have anymore appetitite for another interventionist war in the Middle East.   The little flags and the yellow ribbon car magnets have lost their charm.
 
2013-08-26 04:59:55 PM

ManateeGag: yeah it does. didn't you know, we have to the world's police force. any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene. God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.


Tell that to every case where the goddamn UN put the brunt of military action on the US.

The US is like that big, dumb kid everyone looks down on because he's "violent" until some other, smaller country or group needs him to come along and handle a problem. Neat thing is, foreign regimes can point us at someone else, plant plenty of evidence, and watch while we rush headlong towards leveling the fark out of them, all the while tacitly denouncing what we've done.

On the list of places that deserve our help, Syria's pretty goddamn far down the list, behind places like Columbia and Mexico, which we actually had a pretty big hand in screwing up, what with the drug war and all, and are thus much higher on the list of places that should get some intervention attention.
 
2013-08-26 05:00:11 PM

Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?


Doctors W/o Borders tends to be a pretty trusted source.
 
2013-08-26 05:00:20 PM

Mad_Radhu: [565x318 from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbn ail_570x321/2013/08/newsroom_genoa_-_h_-_2013.jpg image 565x318]

Let's just make sure that this douchebag didn't edit the interviews first.


Am I alone in having called the reason for the basketball game being in the background when it originally came up? I was thinking, "This dumbass is going to try to edit this later and get farked with the built in timestamp."
 
2013-08-26 05:00:51 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.


We need to figure out how to rebuild Detroit and Baltimore.
 
2013-08-26 05:00:52 PM
During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist course for the US and generally Fark everything up more than it was when he was elected.

P.S. Note: Socialism worked out economically very well for Italy, Spain, and Greece, who not only had nearly 6 decades of peace, but peace paid for by the US, not their own GDPs...didn't it? How can you not have to pay much for your defense for 60 years and still go broke?

Socialism....good course to plot, Barack Hussein...
 
2013-08-26 05:01:05 PM

MNguy: Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Doctors W/o Borders tends to be a pretty trusted source.


And they said they didn't know.
 
2013-08-26 05:01:31 PM

DoomPaul: Wasn't there a chemical weapons attack in Syria earlier this year or last year that was claimed to have been conducted by Assad right off the bat only to have an actual investigation a few months later show the rebels conducted the attack?


I'm betting on the rebels/Al Quida as well.

Assad is farking clever. He has a medical degree, and is a specialist in eye surgery.

Clever people can of course be psychos, but psychos usually have a strong sense of selfpreservation. Launching a gas attack the same day the UN inspectors arrive seems out of character for such a person.
 
2013-08-26 05:01:55 PM

Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist course for the US and generally Fark everything up more than it was when he was elected.

P.S. Note: Socialism worked out economically very well for Italy, Spain, and Greece, who not only had nearly 6 decades of peace, but peace paid for by the US, not their own GDPs...didn't it? How can you not have to pay much for your defense for 60 years and still go broke?

Socialism....good course to plot, Barack Hussein...


You sound dumb.
 
2013-08-26 05:02:04 PM

Fusilier: TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.

We need to figure out how to rebuild Detroit and Baltimore.


Tear it down and start anew
 
2013-08-26 05:02:06 PM

Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours

Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!


*snort*

Don't forget last night's Miley Cyrus performance
 
2013-08-26 05:02:34 PM
Oh boy, forgot this was on the main page with all the insane people. Abandoning ship immediately.
 
2013-08-26 05:02:36 PM

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.


Depends.  Turkey has a HUGE army and they do NOT want this clusterfark on their border.  If this happens as an UN operation I imagine they'd take a big interest in seeing it run right.

Start with air strikes, then have Turkish army go in while the Foreign Legion airdrops into the Damascus airport.
 
2013-08-26 05:03:15 PM

InmanRoshi: Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist course for the US and generally Fark everything up more than it was when he was elected.

P.S. Note: Socialism worked out economically very well for Italy, Spain, and Greece, who not only had nearly 6 decades of peace, but peace paid for by the US, not their own GDPs...didn't it? How can you not have to pay much for your defense for 60 years and still go broke?

Socialism....good course to plot, Barack Hussein...

You sound dumb.


You sound uninformed...dispute any of my points...
 
2013-08-26 05:03:55 PM
Unlike Libya, Syria has a metric assload of antiaircraft weapons, the best the Russians sell. This is going to be a tomahawk missile fest of the first order. I wouldn't bet on too many boots on the ground, Putin has decided to dig his heels in on Syria, and we all remember the fun we had with our proxy wars.
 
2013-08-26 05:04:55 PM
Is this the thread where garden variety Fark conserva-trolls pretend to be against this sort of thing?
 
2013-08-26 05:05:01 PM
Russian warships have left their docks and are in the Med. Bombing will start soon.
 
2013-08-26 05:05:50 PM
Not just no, but fark no.
 
2013-08-26 05:06:17 PM

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?
 
2013-08-26 05:06:25 PM

ManRay: It aint no easy thing being the World's Police Officer.


The LEAST the world could do is get us decent donuts, but no...we even have to make those ourselves.

/actually, Tim Horton's aren't bad
 
2013-08-26 05:06:34 PM

spawn73: TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.

What if Assad wins anyway in that scenario?

Then it just sound like prolonging the war for nothing gained (assuming you hope Assad looses).


If Assad wins then he'll be king of a pile of rubble, so at least he won't pose a concern to Israel or our other allies in the area.
 
2013-08-26 05:06:50 PM

GleeUnit: Don't forget last night's Miley Cyrus performance


GleeUnit: Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of ToursTwerk
Syria


There you go.
 
2013-08-26 05:06:51 PM

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


This is the thread in which conservatives and liberals of all sort band together for the greater good
 
2013-08-26 05:06:54 PM
We should delay getting involved for as long as possible. The more of them that kill each other the better.
 
2013-08-26 05:07:18 PM

SilentStrider: Not just no, but fark no.


Yeah, I don't want any part of this business, either. It's awful, to be sure, but no matter who wins, we (the US) lose.
 
2013-08-26 05:07:21 PM

farkingismybusiness: [450x338 from http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/8/83/fark_83cOR0czc4uX2FLjpWW4_8b 507E.gif?t=tiCMtmROAF-iNZzDbTo1Bw&f=1378094400 image 450x338]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK5fKFFqJe4
 
2013-08-26 05:07:21 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Taxbongo? I'm no fan of the man, but your point is greatly watered down when you resort to childish name-calling.


Welcome to fark!
 
2013-08-26 05:07:27 PM
It's in our national interest to keep the...Damascus steel supply safe. And all of those other vital things Syria provides.
 
2013-08-26 05:07:33 PM

Satanic_Hamster: 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.

Depends.  Turkey has a HUGE army and they do NOT want this clusterfark on their border.  If this happens as an UN operation I imagine they'd take a big interest in seeing it run right.

Start with air strikes, then have Turkish army go in while the Foreign Legion airdrops into the Damascus airport.


Not gonna happen without NATO, the Russians have the Turks by the balls, Link
 
2013-08-26 05:07:50 PM
Question: As Americans, why do we care?

/Isolationist
//Git off'n muh lawn.
 
2013-08-26 05:08:01 PM

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?


If so, we have boots on the ground in some 50 countries
 
2013-08-26 05:08:26 PM

snocone: What is not "undeniable" is who the fark actually used the WMD.
Since the rule of thumb is follow the cash, I'll go with the best funded, perennial fave, CIA.

begin


I'm gonna say they outsourced it to Al-Qaeda.
 
2013-08-26 05:08:31 PM
"Using chemical weapons against innocent civilians is unacceptable. No regime can be allowed to do so with impunity," said. Rep. Buck McKeo


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

Well, except for when we dislike the person you're gassing more than we dislike you.  Then it's just fine.  We'll even give you maps of where they are.
 
2013-08-26 05:08:33 PM

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?


Yeah...odds are we had assets in country for weeks already.
 
2013-08-26 05:08:40 PM

Giltric: We should delay getting involved for as long as possible. The more of them that kill each other the better.


Just like Rwanda.
 
2013-08-26 05:09:21 PM

WTF Indeed: Russian warships have left their docks and are in the Med. Bombing will start soon.


So, you're saying this thing will get out of control?
 
2013-08-26 05:09:27 PM

ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.


I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.
 
2013-08-26 05:10:03 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?


Dead brown people aka keeping up with our previous stellar foreign policy
 
2013-08-26 05:10:20 PM

scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel: Unlike Libya, Syria has a metric assload of antiaircraft weapons, the best the Russians sell. This is going to be a tomahawk missile fest of the first order. I wouldn't bet on too many boots on the ground, Putin has decided to dig his heels in on Syria, and we all remember the fun we had with our proxy wars.


Yeah, too bad we didn't hold on to those F-117As. Those might have been useful in disassembling that air defense network. Of course, you can probably just fly in some Predators low to the ground and take out the missile and gun emplacements just as easily these days. They may not be quite as stealthy, but I'm guessing you can always Zerg rush the air defenses until you knock some big holes in the perimeter for about the same cost as an F-35.
 
2013-08-26 05:11:23 PM
This is what I'm talking about.  I list a series of random, unrelated incidents and attempt to pin them on the worst president in the history of this country, and people call me a troll.  I didn't know that attempting to arouse emotion on an internet message board for my own amusement was trolling these days.

Thats_Not_My_Baby: I dunno. I remember he used to have good insight on video game stuff. Then some time ago he turned into this. It kind of ruined any attempts at trolling he does for me, knowing he was once a legitimate poster. He should have created an alt.


Alts are for casuals.  The skill is in being able to seamlessly switch from one posting style to another without arousing suspicion.

GleeUnit: Don't forget last night's Miley Cyrus performance


Implying the performance was merely a "disaster" and not a billion-dollar CIA project designed to distract Americans from the important issues, like Benghazi.
 
2013-08-26 05:11:24 PM

PunGent: So, you're saying this thing will get out of control?


No. You don't keep ships stationary in at dock in a city that has a good chance of getting bombed in the coming hours.
 
2013-08-26 05:11:34 PM

Heron: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.


FFS what is up with all of these Jewish conspiracy theories?
 
2013-08-26 05:12:24 PM

Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Remember the last time we went to war over WMDs in the mid-east?

AIPAC pays good money to keep your leaders on the string, it would be unfair were they to not earn that money by blowing a few thousand Syrian children into dust. They're just Arab animals, after all.


In fairness, the last time, we had the receipts.
 
2013-08-26 05:13:55 PM
Want to fix Syria, Rwanda, Mali, etc?

Close the West to immigration...how can the undeveloped world find it's patriots if everyone that want liberty and justice flees their homelands for 'the better life in the West'?

If everyone that wants freedom and opportunity flees to the US and Europe, then every country that doesn't have a strong culture and effective national institutions will simply become Syria or Rwanda.

Like Afghanistan...and letting that little teapot steep worked out well, did it not?
 
2013-08-26 05:14:08 PM

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
 
2013-08-26 05:14:13 PM
Holy crap! Kerry is Hitler, I KNEW it!
 
2013-08-26 05:14:36 PM

TuteTibiImperes: spawn73: TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.

What if Assad wins anyway in that scenario?

Then it just sound like prolonging the war for nothing gained (assuming you hope Assad looses).

If Assad wins then he'll be king of a pile of rubble, so at least he won't pose a concern to Israel or our other allies in the area.


Hopefully decision makers in NATO doesn't see it the same way you do.

But who knows, they did the Iraq thing... :(
 
2013-08-26 05:14:49 PM
What exactly would the conditions for "winning" be? That has pretty much has been the problem with modern warfare with respect to US intervention for quite some time now. If the conditions for winning were to simply decimate the opposing force, that would be easy. You can't kill ideals and fix the problem in the Middle East with bombs. So Syria is gassing its people, we roll up and stomp strategic military targets and Assad is deposed. Then what?
 
2013-08-26 05:14:56 PM
www.filmweb.no
What this war needs is Ernst Stavro Blofeld, a diamond coated satellite WMD and Jill St. John.  I, of course, am Bond.  James Bond.
 
2013-08-26 05:15:14 PM

Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!


Blow up everyone mentioned above?
 
2013-08-26 05:15:20 PM

cman: FFS what is up with all of these Jewish conspiracy theories?


Dog whistles.
 
2013-08-26 05:15:30 PM

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?


In an ideal world I'd love to see us handle most of our forceful foreign negotiations that way.  Have CIA teams keep track of what's going on, and if they see a problem developing, allow them to nip it in the bud before it grows big enough to make the news or require military intervention.

Heron: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.


The way Morsi was going he wouldn't made Mubarek look like Mother Theresa.  The Egyptian Military stepped in to fix the problem before it got out of hand, and once they've handled the Muslim Brotherhood situation hopefully they step down and allow for democratic elections.

Israel is our strongest ally in the region, and we need to consider their needs in our operations over there.
 
2013-08-26 05:16:04 PM

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


Nope. This is the thread where the Fark regulars rationalize it this time around because, you know, Obama.
 
2013-08-26 05:16:37 PM
Soon, the water off Syria will turn white as USS Ohio spews forth 154 Tomahawks in a stunning display of American ability to shiat away money on something that really doesn't threaten America directly.


LET them die...
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-26 05:16:46 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!

Taxbongo?  I'm no fan of the man, but your point is greatly watered down when you resort to childish name-calling.


I would have to agree.  resorting to argumentum ad hominem discredits your position
 
2013-08-26 05:17:01 PM

cman: Heron: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.

FFS what is up with all of these Jewish conspiracy theories?


Israel does not equal Jews. Israel is a State run by war-mongers whose own military and secret service think need to chill the fark out, and Judaism is a world-wide religion with a century-long tradition of peacefulness, neighborliness, open-mindedness, empiricism, and scholarship. Pointing out that Israel has clear interests in the Syrian conflict, which it has expressed publicly, and that it has been involved in propping up the rebels from nearly the beginning is not a conspiracy theory. It's basic farking literacy.
 
2013-08-26 05:17:12 PM

InmanRoshi: darth_badger: US wars are started with false flags and this will be the next one. This will keep people employed in America and is good for the military industrial complex.

The only hope I have is that the stock market tanked immediately after Kerry's speech.   The American people don't have anymore appetitite for another interventionist war in the Middle East.   The little flags and the yellow ribbon car magnets have lost their charm.


That will not happen. The rich are sure to move money to make money.  American Idol and the NFL will stop most people from being terrified.
 
2013-08-26 05:17:23 PM
War never changes.
 
2013-08-26 05:17:36 PM

ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.


underscoopfire.com

"Wherever there's injustice, we'll be there!" Better send these guys in

/hot like El Guapo
 
2013-08-26 05:17:48 PM

Heron: cman: Heron: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.

FFS what is up with all of these Jewish conspiracy theories?

Israel does not equal Jews. Israel is a State run by war-mongers whose own military and secret service think need to chill the fark out, and Judaism is a world-wide religion with a centuries-long tradition of peacefulness, neighborliness, open-mindedness, empiricism, and scholarship. Pointing out that Israel has clear interests in the Syrian conflict, which it has expressed publicly, and that it has been involved in propping up the rebels from nearly the beginning is not a conspiracy theory. It's basic farking lit ...


ftfm
 
2013-08-26 05:17:50 PM
Muadhamiya, here we go again
i.ytimg.com
 
2013-08-26 05:18:06 PM

the money is in the banana stand: What exactly would the conditions for "winning" be? That has pretty much has been the problem with modern warfare with respect to US intervention for quite some time now. If the conditions for winning were to simply decimate the opposing force, that would be easy. You can't kill ideals and fix the problem in the Middle East with bombs. So Syria is gassing its people, we roll up and stomp strategic military targets and Assad is deposed. Then what?


Hot cocoa sampler boxes for everyone!
 
2013-08-26 05:18:19 PM

Mike_LowELL: Battle of Tours


The battle where the French Christians were victorious over the Muslim invaders? Or was Fartbongo responsible for the Umayyad loss?
 
2013-08-26 05:19:45 PM
"Using chemical weapons against innocent civilians is unacceptable. No regime can be allowed to do so with impunity," said. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Says the Congressman who took more in contributions from the defense industry than anyone else, last year.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2012&ind=D
 
2013-08-26 05:19:58 PM

basemetal: make me some tea: basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.

The videos showed a whole bunch of dead people.

Still want to know what kind of gas.


I've seen 'sarin' named in articles about this.  I don't know if there's any reality to that, if it's disinformation, propaganda, or the equivalent to 'pit bull' / 'AK-47'.  But that's what I've seen named.
 
2013-08-26 05:20:28 PM

Cup Check: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

[300x140 from http://underscoopfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Three-Amigos.png image 300x140]

"Wherever there's injustice, we'll be there!" Better send these guys in

/hot like El Guapo

ts1.mm.bing.net


'Would you say I have a plethora of WMD's?'
 
2013-08-26 05:20:48 PM

the money is in the banana stand: What exactly would the conditions for "winning" be? That has pretty much has been the problem with modern warfare with respect to US intervention for quite some time now. If the conditions for winning were to simply decimate the opposing force, that would be easy. You can't kill ideals and fix the problem in the Middle East with bombs. So Syria is gassing its people, we roll up and stomp strategic military targets and Assad is deposed. Then what?


We will either try to make the people follow our method of democracy or put another nutcase in power who we will defend to the death if he's caught incinerating children for laughs. Only to kill him 20 years later when things go way south.
 
2013-08-26 05:20:52 PM
Obama and biden are just trying to make some money for themselves and their buddies in big oil
 
2013-08-26 05:21:31 PM

Heron: cman: Heron: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.

FFS what is up with all of these Jewish conspiracy theories?

Israel does not equal Jews. Israel is a State run by war-mongers whose own military and secret service think need to chill the fark out, and Judaism is a world-wide religion with a century-long tradition of peacefulness, neighborliness, open-mindedness, empiricism, and scholarship. Pointing out that Israel has clear interests in the Syrian conflict, which it has expressed publicly, and that it has been involved in propping up the rebels from nearly the beginning is not a conspiracy theory. It's basic farking lit ...


Israel is surrounded by people who want to see the country demolished and every Jewish citizen killed.  They're flanked by nations that they embarrassed in a war back in the '60s and who still can't concede that Israel has a right to the territories it seized as spoils of that war.
 
2013-08-26 05:21:35 PM

Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!


Billion Dollar pallets of cash (that can just vanish) seemed to be a motivating factor in Iraq.
 
2013-08-26 05:22:01 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?


Bidness for the Bidness God.
 
2013-08-26 05:22:07 PM

Phineas: Obama and biden are just trying to make some money for themselves and their buddies in big oil


>golf cap<
 
2013-08-26 05:22:15 PM

Mike_LowELL: Battle of Tours


awesome.
 
2013-08-26 05:22:51 PM

Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!


Iran is supporting Assad. Get a clue
 
2013-08-26 05:24:20 PM

21-7-b: Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!

Iran is supporting Assad. Get a clue


ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2013-08-26 05:24:21 PM

flynn80: Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!

Billion Dollar pallets of cash (that can just vanish) seemed to be a motivating factor in Iraq.


You should check politifact.....
 
2013-08-26 05:24:46 PM
We need to start a new war because the peaceniks and civil libertarians who believe we don't need a total military police state are feeling like they should have their way. Time to show them who's in charge.
 
2013-08-26 05:24:52 PM
Hot cocoa sampler boxes for everyone!

Not so fast there, Lt. Gotta check the list to see if those are Halal:


http://turntoislam.com/community/threads/what-chocolates-are-halal.61 1 37/">http://turntoislam.com/community/threads/what-chocolates-are-hal al.611 37/


/really, I am just fed the hell up with these people.
 
2013-08-26 05:25:02 PM
btw, i love that 1,300 years later, the neutrality is disputed on the battle of tours wiki page.
 
2013-08-26 05:25:18 PM

21-7-b: Iran is supporting Assad.


Your point?
 
2013-08-26 05:25:36 PM

darth_badger: InmanRoshi: darth_badger: US wars are started with false flags and this will be the next one. This will keep people employed in America and is good for the military industrial complex.

The only hope I have is that the stock market tanked immediately after Kerry's speech.   The American people don't have anymore appetitite for another interventionist war in the Middle East.   The little flags and the yellow ribbon car magnets have lost their charm.

That will not happen. The rich are sure to move money to make money.  American Idol and the NFL will stop most people from being terrified.


Don't forget comic book movies and "geek culture" to keep middle aged men in perpetual suspended adolescence so that they're easier to control.
 
2013-08-26 05:25:38 PM

Fusilier: TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.

We need to figure out how to rebuild Detroit and Baltimore.


Well, Detroit's easy -- just blame it on Dearborn and start airdropping the pallets of Benjamins.
 
2013-08-26 05:25:56 PM
Sliding Carp:Still want to know what kind of gas.

I've seen 'sarin' named in articles about this.  I don't know if there's any reality to that, if it's disinformation, propaganda, or the equivalent to 'pit bull' / 'AK-47'.  But that's what I've seen named.


That stuff's nasty. You just slowly suffocate.
www.babyassface.com
 
2013-08-26 05:26:13 PM

FlashHarry: btw, i love that 1,300 years later, the neutrality is disputed on the battle of tours wiki page.


Guessing we're not settling this soon....
 
2013-08-26 05:26:40 PM

GoldSpider: 21-7-b: Iran is supporting Assad.

Your point?


Can you read?
 
2013-08-26 05:26:43 PM

21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.


The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.
 
2013-08-26 05:26:44 PM

TuteTibiImperes: our forceful foreign negotiations that way.


In this world, in this day and age, it's hilarious that you self identify with these entities. They look at you just like they look at every foreign government and peon in the world.
 
2013-08-26 05:26:49 PM
Heron:
Israel does not equal Jews. Israel is a State run by war-mongers whose own military and secret service think need to chill the fark out, and Judaism is a world-wide religion with a century-long tradition of peacefulness, neighborliness, open-mindedness, empiricism, and scholarship.

The latter half did fark-all to save them in the centuries upon centuries that they've been treated as walking abominations by most of the Western world.
 
2013-08-26 05:26:50 PM

basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.


They got pictures of dead bodies lined up in rows. Mostly women and kids.

I still don't think we need to get involved. Team America World Police was supposed to be just a movie, not a concept.
 
2013-08-26 05:29:20 PM
Heron:
Israel does not equal Jews. Israel is a State run by war-mongers whose own military and secret service think need to chill the fark out, and Judaism is a world-wide religion with a century-long tradition of peacefulness, neighborliness, open-mindedness, empiricism, and scholarship.

But that's the whole game now, one that everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Jon Stewart are playing - pretending that Judaism is monolithic; that Benji Netanyahu speaks for all Jews. It's bullshiat, of course, but it has a long history of working. At least until it doesn't work any more and peoples go on a rampage against all Jews. It's only happened about 200 times in history.

If you're a Jew who is against warmongering every one of Israel's neighbors into pure chaos, bombing wells in Lebanon or allowing non-Jews the vote; you're not an anti-semite, you're a self-loather, a kapo.
 
2013-08-26 05:30:06 PM
Not to be the Devil's Advocate......

...but there is the issue of 9 billion people on a planet built for about 3 billion...max.

Discuss....
 
2013-08-26 05:30:46 PM
It would be such a breath of fresh air to stay out of this one, but I know we can't do that now can we.
 
2013-08-26 05:30:58 PM

Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.


The problem is identifying "they". Who exactly is our enemy? Can we eliminate them or will more pop up? It is one thing when your opposition is all wearing red uniforms and the conditions for winning is to simply kill those wearing red uniforms. It is another thing when people just keep putting on red uniforms no matter how many you kill.
 
2013-08-26 05:31:28 PM

Heron: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does. didn't you know, we have to the world's police force. any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene. God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

I wouldn't say it's a "world policeman" thing really. We're perfectly happy letting oppressive governments that serve our strategic interests -like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now Egypt once again- deal with democracy protestors with violent crackdowns and persecution. We're making a big stink about Syria because 1)The chauvinists who run the Israeli government right now think getting rid of the Assads will break Hezbollah and leave Syria too screwed up to even complain about the Golan Heights, giving them total control of Northern Israel(and most importantly, the water sources of Northern Israel) for the foreseeable future and 2) plenty of conservatives in the US and Israel see getting rid of the Assads as a potential geopolitical victory against Iran(because they think Syria is an Iranian client rather than an ally, and that Hezbollah can't survive without Iranian aid). The push to intervene in this conflict isn't for any ephemeral moral consideration, but rather coming from what a specific, well-placed faction of our political elite and news media considers their best interest.


According to Michael Rivero's Show today Isreal gave Gas and oil rights in the Golan heights to a company that Cheney holds stock in.
 
2013-08-26 05:33:07 PM
You guessed it-

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-26 05:33:45 PM

Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.


I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters
 
2013-08-26 05:34:19 PM
maybe having WMDs is cause for war
definitely having them, not so much
too bad libs
 
2013-08-26 05:34:27 PM

flynn80: According to Michael Rivero's Show


Holy crap! He's still around?
 
2013-08-26 05:34:40 PM

21-7-b: Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!

Iran is supporting Assad. Get a clue


Yes, a lot of us do understand that for the neo-cons, Syria has always been about a "back door into Iran". That still doesn't explain why it's a good idea for the US to get involved.
 
2013-08-26 05:35:18 PM

21-7-b: Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.

I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters


Show me how to effectively target and isolate our opposition. THAT is the problem.
 
2013-08-26 05:35:21 PM

Darkrover2: Not to be the Devil's Advocate......

...but there is the issue of 9 billion people on a planet built for about 3 billion...max.

Discuss....


We need a way to do mass-sterilization from the air. No killing. Put countries/tribes/regions on notice to get their houses in order or else. They don't, then they can live out their lives watching themselves fade.
 
2013-08-26 05:35:40 PM

Darkrover2: Cup Check: ManateeGag: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah it does.  didn't you know, we have to the world's police force.  any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene.  God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

[300x140 from http://underscoopfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Three-Amigos.png image 300x140]

"Wherever there's injustice, we'll be there!" Better send these guys in

/hot like El Guapo



'Would you say I have a plethora of WMD's?'


dancingczars.files.wordpress.com

Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
 
2013-08-26 05:36:29 PM
So we know they gassed their own people.

How will the public react when we invade to end WMD's and don't find any?
 
2013-08-26 05:37:03 PM

21-7-b: Can you read?


Allow me to explore your train of logic:

1.  Iran supports the Assad regime.
2.  Therefore we should bomb Syria.
 
2013-08-26 05:37:46 PM

Darkrover2: So we know they gassed their own people.

How will the public react when we invade to end WMD's and don't find any?


I ask again, how in the fark do we know that?

Because Zionist media and leaders who pick up millions in AIPAC money said so?
 
2013-08-26 05:38:06 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-26 05:38:07 PM

cc_rider: 21-7-b: Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!

Iran is supporting Assad. Get a clue

Yes, a lot of us do understand that for the neo-cons, Syria has always been about a "back door into Iran". That still doesn't explain why it's a good idea for the US to get involved.


Read the comment I was replying to, ffs. Middle East expert Kit Fister stated the Iranians were supporting the rebels
 
2013-08-26 05:39:11 PM
So, Obama's hubris for declaring 'redlines' will get America into another Mideast War opposed by over 80% of Americans. I hope the 2014 elections become a referendum on America's unwanted role in the Syrian War.
 
2013-08-26 05:39:52 PM
and there was also undeniable evidence of WMDs in Iraq
 
2013-08-26 05:40:20 PM

GoldSpider: 21-7-b: Can you read?

Allow me to explore your train of logic:

1.  Iran supports the Assad regime.
2.  Therefore we should bomb Syria.


Can't you even be bothered to read the comment I was replying to? I was correcting a poster who stated that Iran was supporting the rebels. Stop being so damned lazy
 
2013-08-26 05:42:43 PM

Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: Not to be the Devil's Advocate......

...but there is the issue of 9 billion people on a planet built for about 3 billion...max.

Discuss....

We need a way to do mass-sterilization from the air. No killing. Put countries/tribes/regions on notice to get their houses in order or else. They don't, then they can live out their lives watching themselves fade.


The sad part is that you assume I mean only poor/undeveloped/disadvantaged people. Nothing along those lines matters!

No matter what equation you are doing....

Not enough food
Not enough land
Not enough energy
Not enough water
Not enough health care                           vs                TOO MANY FARKIN PEOPLE
Not enough jobs
Not enough.....
 
2013-08-26 05:42:49 PM

Darkrover2: Not to be the Devil's Advocate......

...but there is the issue of 9 billion people on a planet built for about 3 billion...max.

Discuss....


That part comes after steps 2 and 3

2. ?
3. Profit
4.Kill all the poor.
 
2013-08-26 05:44:15 PM

21-7-b: Can't you even be bothered to read the comment I was replying to?


I've been told that reading is for people with ambiguous sexual preferences at best.
 
2013-08-26 05:44:20 PM

the money is in the banana stand: What exactly would the conditions for "winning" be? That has pretty much has been the problem with modern warfare with respect to US intervention for quite some time now. If the conditions for winning were to simply decimate the opposing force, that would be easy. You can't kill ideals and fix the problem in the Middle East with bombs. So Syria is gassing its people, we roll up and stomp strategic military targets and Assad is deposed. Then what?


First they install a private central bank to issue the state currency as loan to the new "government" with interest.  Next all Public/Government Natural resources and rights to them are sold off to foreign Corporations.  Now the country is in perpetual debt slavery to foreign banks and can never possibly pay back the loans because more debt then wealth is created.  This has been done time and time again, usually orchestrated by arming both sides of a conflict and then telling them that the other side wants to kill them.  All War is war by deception for the profit of banking interests.  War is nothing more than Financial transfer from the people to the elite through fraud.
 
2013-08-26 05:44:34 PM

Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist course for the US and generally Fark everything up more than it was when he was elected.

P.S. Note: Socialism worked out economically very well for Italy, Spain, and Greece, who not only had nearly 6 decades of peace, but peace paid for by the US, not their own GDPs...didn't it? How can you not have to pay much for your defense for 60 years and still go broke?

Socialism....good course to plot, Barack Hussein...


Only 63 seconds for the first bite

8.5/10
 
2013-08-26 05:44:52 PM

Brontes: 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.

The Iraq where we are greeted as liberators?  Sign me up!


flowers and candy! won't take but 6 weeks and the oil will pay for it.
 
2013-08-26 05:46:06 PM

Pumpernickel bread: and there was also undeniable evidence of WMDs in Iraq


It's the same weapons that were in Iraq.  You're not paying attention. Liberals are counting on it.
 
2013-08-26 05:46:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TuteTibiImperes: 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?

Hit munitions dumps, power plants, communications arrays, airfields, military bases, command HQs, etc.  Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.  Then leave and let them finish fighting it out and figure out how to rebuild.

Pretty much exactly what happened in Libya.


I hear leaving a country in rubble after you help them is a good way to make friends.   Thats why al qaeda has such a hard time establishing a foothold in Afghanistan.
 
2013-08-26 05:46:09 PM
Um...Christopher Hitchens?
 
2013-08-26 05:46:48 PM

21-7-b: cc_rider: 21-7-b: Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!

Iran is supporting Assad. Get a clue

Yes, a lot of us do understand that for the neo-cons, Syria has always been about a "back door into Iran". That still doesn't explain why it's a good idea for the US to get involved.

Read the comment I was replying to, ffs. Middle East expert Kit Fister stated the Iranians were supporting the rebels


Sorry, I missed the previous comment, so I guess got ahead of myself there.   ;)
 
2013-08-26 05:47:01 PM
Assad is a brutal dictator who killed his own people. If he gets his comeuppance because he got cause using chemical weapons, that's good enough.
 
2013-08-26 05:47:45 PM

mark12A: Soon, the water off Syria will turn white as USS Ohio spews forth 154 Tomahawks in a stunning display of American ability to shiat away money on something that really doesn't threaten America directly.


LET them die...
[500x215 from http://24.media.tumblr.com/c8fcec84848e353ae32f3d690259f062/tumblr_mhp ueldGsc1rmgvxfo1_500.jpg image 500x215]


That was fantastic Kirk usage... it played perfectly in my mind.
 
2013-08-26 05:48:18 PM
rstvideo.com

Comin' again to save the mother-farkin' day.

/hot
 
2013-08-26 05:48:20 PM

thnksqrd: Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist course for the US and generally Fark everything up more than it was when he was elected.

P.S. Note: Socialism worked out economically very well for Italy, Spain, and Greece, who not only had nearly 6 decades of peace, but peace paid for by the US, not their own GDPs...didn't it? How can you not have to pay much for your defense for 60 years and still go broke?

Socialism....good course to plot, Barack Hussein...

Only 63 seconds for the first bite

8.5/10


ts3.mm.bing.net
'Sometimes I amaze even myself....'
 
2013-08-26 05:49:13 PM

Darkrover2: Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: Not to be the Devil's Advocate......

...but there is the issue of 9 billion people on a planet built for about 3 billion...max.

Discuss....

We need a way to do mass-sterilization from the air. No killing. Put countries/tribes/regions on notice to get their houses in order or else. They don't, then they can live out their lives watching themselves fade.

The sad part is that you assume I mean only poor/undeveloped/disadvantaged people. Nothing along those lines matters!

No matter what equation you are doing....

Not enough food
Not enough land
Not enough energy
Not enough water
Not enough health care                           vs                TOO MANY FARKIN PEOPLE
Not enough jobs
Not enough.....


If I were the King, development and money would have nothing to do with it. Having a bankrupt culture that breeds only hate and war would have everything to do with it. Texarkana would be just as viable a target as Northern India. I know, I know, I'm somehow racist for citing India, but let's see how everyone feels in 50 years when we're choking to death on curry farts.

The Renaissance was only possible because of the Black Death. Suddenly, the mail carrier could be the Postmaster because everybody was dead.
 
2013-08-26 05:50:17 PM
Is it not painfully obvious that the Sarin attack was launched by Russia?

They take the moral high ground, only reluctantly allowing America to fire Tomahawks at Syria.  And in the meantime, they get to watch closely to see how their missile defence systems work in a real assault.  And, to top it all off, it drives one of their buyers back in the store to restock all their munitions.

America spends bajillions on yet another failed war in the middle east, further diminishing their economy, and humiliating themselves in the process.

Well played, Mr Putin.  Well played.
 
2013-08-26 05:50:56 PM

Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: Not to be the Devil's Advocate......

...but there is the issue of 9 billion people on a planet built for about 3 billion...max.

Discuss....

We need a way to do mass-sterilization from the air. No killing. Put countries/tribes/regions on notice to get their houses in order or else. They don't, then they can live out their lives watching themselves fade.

The sad part is that you assume I mean only poor/undeveloped/disadvantaged people. Nothing along those lines matters!

No matter what equation you are doing....

Not enough food
Not enough land
Not enough energy
Not enough water
Not enough health care                           vs                TOO MANY FARKIN PEOPLE
Not enough jobs
Not enough.....

If I were the King, development and money would have nothing to do with it. Having a bankrupt culture that breeds only hate and war would have everything to do with it. Texarkana would be just as viable a target as Northern India. I know, I know, I'm somehow racist for citing India, but let's see how everyone feels in 50 years when we're choking to death on curry farts.

The Renaissance was only possible because of the Black Death. Suddenly, the mail carrier could be the Postmaster because everybody was dead.


We are a bit overdue for a pandemic...
 
2013-08-26 05:51:11 PM

21-7-b: Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.

I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters


So why do WE need to get involved?  Why can't Germany, UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.  Why does it always have to be us?  We aren't even on the same side of the damn planet.  Seems it should be a little more pressing of an issue for their own neighbors.
 
2013-08-26 05:54:03 PM

debug: So why do WE need to get involved?


USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-08-26 05:55:16 PM
debug:
So why do WE need to get involved?  Why can't Germany, UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.  Why does it always have to be us?  We aren't even on the same side of the damn planet.  Seems it should be a little more pressing of an issue for their own neighbors.

Maybe they're not worried because A) It is not a threat and B) They don't have Wolf Blitzer et al shrieking Arabs! at them on the news every night.
 
2013-08-26 05:55:54 PM

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

Nope. This is the thread where the Fark regulars rationalize it this time around because, you know, Obama.


So what you are saying is that us Lefties get to deliver a big fat "I Told Ya So!"
 
2013-08-26 05:56:46 PM
Your killing was all fine and dandy until you killed the wrong way. Now we will have to kill you and then rebuild you in the most expensive way possible.
 
2013-08-26 05:57:16 PM
The nation ain't gonna build itself!
 
2013-08-26 05:57:24 PM

debug: 21-7-b: Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.

I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters

So why do WE need to get involved?  Why can't Germany, UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.  Why does it always have to be us?  We aren't even on the same side of the damn planet.  Seems it should be a little more pressing of an issue for their own neighbors.


Europeans have defunded their militaries to the point they simply cannot carry out such a mission. Hell, they needed US support for the much less difficult removal of Gaddaffi. They know we will pay for it and bleed for it, so why bother.
 
2013-08-26 05:57:51 PM

Apik0r0s: debug:
So why do WE need to get involved?  Why can't Germany, UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.  Why does it always have to be us?  We aren't even on the same side of the damn planet.  Seems it should be a little more pressing of an issue for their own neighbors.

Maybe they're not worried because A) It is not a threat and B) They don't have Wolf Blitzer et al shrieking Arabs! at them on the news every night.


The first two....budgetary and political issues....the second two, military issues...
 
2013-08-26 06:00:27 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pumpernickel bread: and there was also undeniable evidence of WMDs in Iraq

It's the same weapons that were in Iraq.  You're not paying attention. Liberals are counting on it.


So, what you're saying is that there are no WMDs in Syria?
 
2013-08-26 06:00:38 PM

21-7-b: Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!

Iran is supporting Assad. Get a clue


okay, my mistake. That still doesn't explain to me why getting involved militarily in the middle east in YET ANOTHER country is doing us any favors? We support Assad: we lose. We support the rebels: We lose. No matter what happens, we end up the bad guy.
 
2013-08-26 06:01:44 PM

dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pumpernickel bread: and there was also undeniable evidence of WMDs in Iraq

It's the same weapons that were in Iraq.  You're not paying attention. Liberals are counting on it.

So, what you're saying is that there are no WMDs in Syria?


What he's saying is that the conspiracy theorists believe Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria before the US got there.
 
2013-08-26 06:03:13 PM

basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.


It's a food product, essentially.
 
2013-08-26 06:04:20 PM

Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pumpernickel bread: and there was also undeniable evidence of WMDs in Iraq

It's the same weapons that were in Iraq.  You're not paying attention. Liberals are counting on it.

So, what you're saying is that there are no WMDs in Syria?

What he's saying is that the conspiracy theorists believe Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria before the US got there.


It's more fun to call them out as if they were being honest or not crazy.
 
2013-08-26 06:04:36 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The way Morsi was going he wouldn't made Mubarek look like Mother Theresa.  The Egyptian Military stepped in to fix the problem before it got out of hand, and once they've handled the Muslim Brotherhood situation hopefully they step down and allow for democratic elections.

Israel is our strongest ally in the region, and we need to consider their needs in our operations over there.


The Egyptian military never stopped running things. Morsi tried to stand up to them and they proved that. They let that experiment last precisely as long as it took for the westernized urban minority to once more realize it was a minority, and when enough of them were willing to play along with their grandparents' deal to support military rule in exchange for second-hand modernization, they went right back to doing things more or less the way they have been since the Officers' Revolt.

At best, they'll allow a greater patina of powerless civilian control to sit in front of their rule; most likely, they'll just run it as an oligarchic council and shy away from the Strong Man excesses Nasser introduced and which threatened to transform into de facto monarchy under Mubarak(remember, he was trying to pass everything off to his son, whereas typically Head of State status has passed on to the next highest ranked military official when one "President" has stepped down or died).

As to Morsi, you need to understand exactly what he did. He tried to cut out the military and old military political clients from government. The power to legislate without judicial approval was necessary because all those judges are hold overs from the military regime. He attempted to re-install a democratically elected legislature -that yes, was mostly members of his Islamist part but that's because those are who the Egyptians freely elected; that party won for a reason, and that reason is its candidates got the most votes- which the military had disbanded through the Supreme Constitutional Court, which it controls. He declared nullified checks on Presidential and legislative power which the military had "passed" through the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. His government also did and said some other things that worried upper-class Egyptians, but what do you expect; proper political behavior within a democracy is a tradition you build, not a switch you flip. In any new democracy not headed by the inhumanly humble and fanatically Republican personage of George Washington is going to run into some hiccups in its early days, particularly when it has a hostile military -and an upper class with a decades long history of supporting that military so long as it keeps the poors down- breathing down its neck.

What he was trying to do was put the Egyptian military back in its barracks permanently so they'd never play kingmaker again. Their response was to orchestrate shortages and foment hysteria through their allied media networks, which led to unrest, which they then used as the basis for orchestrating a coup. This stuff isn't new, and it wasn't even well hidden; hell, Morsi's wikipedia page covers all of it. The reason you didn't hear about this in that way is because the Europeans, particularly Cameron, were emphatically behind the Egyptian military on this(that's why the BBC led the way on pro-coup coverage), and our gov didn't really care one way or another because Morsi, in playing to his base to shore up his position against the military, had promised to do certain things we weren't comfortable with, like seek the humanitarian extradition of Omar Abdel-Rahman, and include clauses in a new Constitution declaring it in-line with "Islamic Law", which doesn't really mean much. Bahrain claims to be in-line with Islamic law and it's covered in brothels and bars; Saudi Arabia claims the same and it has roaming religious police who will behead you in public for blasphemy. "in-line with Islamic Law" covers a lot of ground, but it sounds scary to pants-wetting ignorant westerners who've never bothered to crack a single damn book about foreign policy or history, and don't know what "real politik" actually means, so there we are.

Morsi's term was the forces of genuine Egyptian democracy, which in this instance were lead by the Islamic Brotherhood, trying to stand up to the military that has suppressed them for decades. Morsi thought the military was weakened by Mubarak's fall, he thought that the participation of the upper-class urbanites in bringing that about was a sign of a schism between the military and its historical base of support, and he picked his fight accordingly. He thought wrong, he lost, and the military made sure to murder his daughter in public and violently crush his supporters in front of the world to drive the point home. Eat the propaganda if you want, I certainly can't stop you, but this wasn't some heroic and wildly ahistorical example of the Egyptian military suddenly finding it cared about democracy and valiantly standing up to a power-mad, universally hated tyrant. This was a military dictatorship that had temporarily stood aside and allowed its chosen "leader" to get taken down after he started entertaining visions of kingship reasserting its authority over the people, with the renewed support of at least some of the urban elites who'd abandoned it due to Mubarak's excesses and the political trends of the time.
 
2013-08-26 06:05:47 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?


Kosovo. Or Libya. Pick one.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 06:07:12 PM

Darkrover2: TOO MANY FARKIN PEOPLE


userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-08-26 06:08:21 PM

Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!


Saw Benghazi, almost highlighted you in dumbfark orange. Saw Taxbongo just in time, highlighted you in satire grey instead.
 
2013-08-26 06:08:36 PM

debug: UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.


Sure, as soon as the Euro becomes the new Reserve Currency of the World Economy. Better yet, lets walk away from NATO, that is sure to have a positive effect on our world alliances and in no way embolden Russia and China to flex their muscles.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 06:08:58 PM

ciberido: basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.

It's a food product, essentially.


www.robertcaplin.com

Megyn, boobs are GTFO
 
2013-08-26 06:09:57 PM

d23: Darkrover2: TOO MANY FARKIN PEOPLE

[500x428 from http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/57807999/Land+of+Confusion.jpg image 500x428]


Yea, 3 too many as far as Genesis goes...Exodus and Leviticus as well...
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 06:10:18 PM

NathanAllen: Sure, as soon as the Euro becomes the new Reserve Currency of the World Economy.


Quick, Shelly... put a bill in the hopper!
 
2013-08-26 06:11:36 PM

Kit Fister: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pumpernickel bread: and there was also undeniable evidence of WMDs in Iraq

It's the same weapons that were in Iraq.  You're not paying attention. Liberals are counting on it.

So, what you're saying is that there are no WMDs in Syria?

What he's saying is that the conspiracy theorists believe Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria before the US got there.


Which he did. Potty Poot didn't give them to Syria.  And neither did Iran. Leaves only one source. Get a big crayon and connect those dots. durrr.  As badly as Curveball has been discredited, it's likely his data had some truth to it.  He had to be discredited after we found nothing in Iraq.  I wonder what Colin Powell is thinking about these days?
 
2013-08-26 06:12:01 PM

Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: So we know they gassed their own people.

How will the public react when we invade to end WMD's and don't find any?

I ask again, how in the fark do we know that?

Because Zionist media and leaders who pick up millions in AIPAC money said so?


We don't know that.  Yet.  But I think there is some evidence that the Syrian government gassed its own people even though the Zionist media and the AIPAC shills said they did.  To wit:  3600 people who all came down in the same morning with symptoms that led doctors to believe they had all been exposed to a neurotoxin, the Syrian government's conventional bombardment of the area where those people lived over the course of the next several days after the symptoms were first reported, the fact that just about all the people affected were Sunni Muslims, and the dearth of reliable evidence that the rebels possess chemical weapons or that they know how to handle and deliver them.
 
2013-08-26 06:12:20 PM

basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.


Based on the videos and reports from Doctors without borders, I'm going to go with Sarin or Tabun.
 
2013-08-26 06:12:43 PM
When do the anti-war protests start? It's been years since the last good protests.
 
2013-08-26 06:14:26 PM

the money is in the banana stand: 21-7-b: Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.

I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters

Show me how to effectively target and isolate our opposition. THAT is the problem.


Yeah, it is a problem, but as I understand it we can supply anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons which we can stop falling into the wrong hands because of the communication equipment they contain and the ability to remotely deactivate them. That places the FSA in a position whereby they can fight Assad, rather than simply being pounded day-after-day, as they have been, which should in turn make them seem more militarily attractive to those fighting than the Al Qaeda affiliates.

Ultimately if Syria is to stay intact the government will need to govern the loyalists, the rebels and the Kurds, and, given the last two-and-a-half years, not to mention the preceding 50, to govern without repression is going to require a meaningful coalition. In many ways, then, the obviousness of the difficulty inherent in the problem makes the solution easier: the country is going to need a meaningful, inclusive constitution that guarantees the groups some degree of safety and autonomy and has to sideline the all-or-nothing approach of Assad and Al Qaeda

The longer it takes us to do something the more atrocities the Al Qaeda franchises and Assad will commit and the more repressive the victorious parties are likely to be

Here's a site dedicated to the creative side of the revolution

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
 
2013-08-26 06:14:44 PM

muck4doo: When do the anti-war protests start? It's been years since the last good protests.


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2013-08-26 06:15:01 PM
To all the folks that want dusty boots;  Show me the R.O.I..
 
2013-08-26 06:15:59 PM

muck4doo: When do the anti-war protests start? It's been years since the last good protests.


Oh hell muck, those hippies are still trying to figure out how to milk #Occupy XXX some more. They wouldn't know who or what to protest in this shiatty mess.
 
2013-08-26 06:16:18 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.


You practice to be this factually impaired?
 
2013-08-26 06:16:59 PM

tirob: Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: So we know they gassed their own people.

How will the public react when we invade to end WMD's and don't find any?

I ask again, how in the fark do we know that?

Because Zionist media and leaders who pick up millions in AIPAC money said so?

We don't know that.  Yet.  But I think there is some evidence that the Syrian government gassed its own people even though the Zionist media and the AIPAC shills said they did.  To wit:  3600 people who all came down in the same morning with symptoms that led doctors to believe they had all been exposed to a neurotoxin, the Syrian government's conventional bombardment of the area where those people lived over the course of the next several days after the symptoms were first reported, the fact that just about all the people affected were Sunni Muslims, and the dearth of reliable evidence that the rebels possess chemical weapons or that they know how to handle and deliver them.


Makes sense, that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons in such an obvious way on the eve of a UN team arriving to investigate chemical weapons use. No detective in the world would buy that, they know you look at who benefits.
 
2013-08-26 06:17:14 PM

Heron: TuteTibiImperes: The way Morsi was going he wouldn't made Mubarek look like Mother Theresa.  The Egyptian Military stepped in to fix the problem before it got out of hand, and once they've handled the Muslim Brotherhood situation hopefully they step down and allow for democratic elections.

Israel is our strongest ally in the region, and we need to consider their needs in our operations over there.

The Egyptian military never stopped running things. Morsi tried to stand up to them and they proved that. They let that experiment last precisely as long as it took for the westernized urban minority to once more realize it was a minority, and when enough of them were willing to play along with their grandparents' deal to support military rule in exchange for second-hand modernization, they went right back to doing things more or less the way they have been since the Officers' Revolt.

At best, they'll allow a greater patina of powerless civilian control to sit in front of their rule; most likely, they'll just run it as an oligarchic council and shy away from the Strong Man excesses Nasser introduced and which threatened to transform into de facto monarchy under Mubarak(remember, he was trying to pass everything off to his son, whereas typically Head of State status has passed on to the next highest ranked military official when one "President" has stepped down or died).

As to Morsi, you need to understand exactly what he did. He tried to cut out the military and old military political clients from government. The power to legislate without judicial approval was necessary because all those judges are hold overs from the military regime. He attempted to re-install a democratically elected legislature -that yes, was mostly members of his Islamist part but that's because those are who the Egyptians freely elected; that party won for a reason, and that reason is its candidates got the most votes- which the military had disbanded through the Supreme Constitutional Court, whi ...


cdn.bleacherreport.net
 
2013-08-26 06:18:07 PM

Kit Fister: So, let's see. We have Al Qaeda/Muslim Extremists on one side, and we have an assholish dictator on the other. Meanwhile, the one side is supported by the likes of Iran, and the other the likes of China and Russia. With as much support as China and russia give Assad, this could easily end up worse than either Iraq or A-Stan.

HOW THE fark COULD GETTING INVOLVED POSSIBLY BE A GOOD IDEA?!


lh3.googleusercontent.com

Who cares, as long as there are more dead brown people, right?
 
2013-08-26 06:19:26 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-26 06:20:44 PM

debug: 21-7-b: Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.

I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters

So why do WE need to get involved?  Why can't Germany, UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.  Why does it always have to be us?  We aren't even on the same side of the damn planet.  Seems it should be a little more pressing of an issue for their own neighbors.


That's true, but the bottom line is that America is the top dog.
 
2013-08-26 06:21:26 PM
Invade Iraq for oil and now Syria for gas? It's always something.
 
2013-08-26 06:22:51 PM

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....
 
2013-08-26 06:23:20 PM

Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist


farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-08-26 06:23:24 PM

muck4doo: When do the anti-war protests start? It's been years since the last good protests.


Can we start protesting with upside down American Flags again?
 
2013-08-26 06:24:17 PM
It seems like only four days ago when when we all had a good laugh about Obama being indifferent to gassed Syrians. Those were the days.
 
2013-08-26 06:25:37 PM

lordjupiter: Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist

[250x272 from http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3292/5763428843_ce57f1f3a9.jpg image 250x272]


As we knew you would...ignorance is bliss for the ignorant.
 
2013-08-26 06:26:54 PM

JerseyTim: It seems like only four days ago when when we all had a good laugh about Obama being indifferent to gassed Syrians. Those were the days.


He hasn't done much yet. This still falls under the "talk big" heading.
 
2013-08-26 06:27:25 PM

2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.

You practice to be this factually impaired?


If you think you have all the facts, I got news for you.  You don't.  But if you put some lipstick on that chicken tonight, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it.
 
2013-08-26 06:27:54 PM

ztrom: Heron:
Israel does not equal Jews. Israel is a State run by war-mongers whose own military and secret service think need to chill the fark out, and Judaism is a world-wide religion with a century-long tradition of peacefulness, neighborliness, open-mindedness, empiricism, and scholarship.

The latter half did fark-all to save them in the centuries upon centuries that they've been treated as walking abominations by most of the Western world.


Did I say that it did? Europeans are disgusting assholes; humans in general are disgusting assholes. No part of their respective traditions and histories saved the Basques, the Welsh, the Irish, the Czechs, the Roma, the Ainu or any other "people" surrounded and outnumbered by another "people" -or attacked by a technically stronger foe- in any other part of the world, either. Be a minority anywhere before the 20th century, and in most places still, and chances were good you'd have a pretty rough time of it. This indisputably crappy fact of human existence doesn't make treating other people as sub-humans right, nor war-mongering just. That Europeans before WWII were shiatheads doesn't justify bull-dozing Palestinian homes, or reducing Beirut to rubble. You don't choose to be moral because it saves you; you choose to be moral because the only thing that gives life any value is choosing how you want to live it, and staying true to that decision.
 
2013-08-26 06:29:05 PM

Darkrover2: lordjupiter: Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist

[250x272 from http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3292/5763428843_ce57f1f3a9.jpg image 250x272]

As we knew you would...ignorance is bliss for the ignorant.


Put your line back in the water
 
2013-08-26 06:29:57 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!

Taxbongo?  I'm no fan of the man, but your point is greatly watered down when you resort to childish name-calling.


Agreed. The obamacare issue was very heavy handed, and the mandate could have been written differently. The recent security leaks have been embarrassing, and other countries are wising up to his not really being desirous to put boots on the ground for more than a few minutes. None of these are cataclysmic, so I'd ask what those other disasters are, other than the ones handed to him like the economy, the two wars, and a culture of secrecy that borders on becoming a police state. He's done some stupid shiat, but the right-wing had better not claim they handed over to him a country overwhelmed with magical puppies and companies gleefully handing out well paid jobs.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 06:30:28 PM

Darkrover2: lordjupiter: Darkrover2: During Obama's first campaign, I asked people why we should elect as President someone that had less than half of the national political experience of the much lampooned Dan Quayle had when he ran for Vice-President.

Apparently the reason is to set a socialist

[250x272 from http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3292/5763428843_ce57f1f3a9.jpg image 250x272]

As we knew you would...ignorance is bliss for the ignorant.


Naw.  Obama is about as socialist as the Rockefeller family.  If you think he's a socialist then you are redefining words.
 
2013-08-26 06:31:54 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: debug: 21-7-b: Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: I don't have enough information to say that I know who used the chemical weapons. The administration thinks it does

I think the time for some sort of Western intervention has come, though.

The administration needs to lay out that information to the voters then because if the administration is going  to attack someone in their name then they need to be shown exactly why it is justified. Both sides have a motive for doing it or not doing it and both sides have denied it. One side is lying. How about we do that before shooting $200+ million dollars worth of missiles on them and give assistance to what amounts to Al Queda?

Unless they go outside of their own borders we need to stay out of it.

I don't get this argument that we shouldn't intervene because we would be strengthening the syrian Al Qaeda franchise. Obviously we need to intervene in a way that doesn't strengthen Al Qaeda. What has so far strengthened Al Qaeda is our not intervening, and the longer time passes without us intervening the stronger they look set to become. They slaughtered 450 Kurds the other day, for example, and their ranks are now being daily swelled by underequipped FSA fighters

So why do WE need to get involved?  Why can't Germany, UK, France, Italy etc take care of it.  Why does it always have to be us?  We aren't even on the same side of the damn planet.  Seems it should be a little more pressing of an issue for their own neighbors.

Europeans have defunded their militaries to the point they simply cannot carry out such a mission. Hell, they needed US support for the much less difficult removal of Gaddaffi. They know we will pay for it and bleed for it, so why bother.


Quite apart from raw military capability, America can call in favors far more effectively than individual (or even a coalition of) European countries. Generally, if America flexes its muscles it can rely on some sort of back-up. If a European country tried to flex its muscles in the same way it would be laughed out of town
 
2013-08-26 06:34:13 PM

Nadie_AZ: War should be a last result. It should be painful. It should require sacrifice. It should make you never want to fight one again and avoid it at all costs.


Nah.
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
Just a little taste is enough.
 
2013-08-26 06:35:08 PM

Apik0r0s: tirob: Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: So we know they gassed their own people.

How will the public react when we invade to end WMD's and don't find any?

I ask again, how in the fark do we know that?

Because Zionist media and leaders who pick up millions in AIPAC money said so?

We don't know that.  Yet.  But I think there is some evidence that the Syrian government gassed its own people even though the Zionist media and the AIPAC shills said they did.  To wit:  3600 people who all came down in the same morning with symptoms that led doctors to believe they had all been exposed to a neurotoxin, the Syrian government's conventional bombardment of the area where those people lived over the course of the next several days after the symptoms were first reported, the fact that just about all the people affected were Sunni Muslims, and the dearth of reliable evidence that the rebels possess chemical weapons or that they know how to handle and deliver them.

Makes sense, that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons in such an obvious way on the eve of a UN team arriving to investigate chemical weapons use. No detective in the world would buy that, they know you look at who benefits.


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.
 
2013-08-26 06:36:15 PM

cman: It doesn't concern us


yeah.. Neither did the Holocaust. We shoulda just let the Jews figure it out, down to the last one.
 
2013-08-26 06:36:58 PM

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?
 
2013-08-26 06:37:26 PM

Nana's Vibrator: Mike_LowELL: Benghazi
Libya
Taxbongocare
Benghazi
Katrina
Iraq
Iran
Benghazi
Kosovo
Battle of Tours
Syria

Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!

And Ben Affleck.  You always forget him.


I've been TRYing to forget Ben Affleck.  Thank you so much for reminding me.
 
2013-08-26 06:37:31 PM

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.


That's completely rational.

/backs away
 
2013-08-26 06:37:54 PM

tirob: Apik0r0s: tirob: Apik0r0s: Darkrover2: So we know they gassed their own people.

How will the public react when we invade to end WMD's and don't find any?

I ask again, how in the fark do we know that?

Because Zionist media and leaders who pick up millions in AIPAC money said so?

We don't know that.  Yet.  But I think there is some evidence that the Syrian government gassed its own people even though the Zionist media and the AIPAC shills said they did.  To wit:  3600 people who all came down in the same morning with symptoms that led doctors to believe they had all been exposed to a neurotoxin, the Syrian government's conventional bombardment of the area where those people lived over the course of the next several days after the symptoms were first reported, the fact that just about all the people affected were Sunni Muslims, and the dearth of reliable evidence that the rebels possess chemical weapons or that they know how to handle and deliver them.

Makes sense, that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons in such an obvious way on the eve of a UN team arriving to investigate chemical weapons use. No detective in the world would buy that, they know you look at who benefits.

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?
 
2013-08-26 06:38:38 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.

You practice to be this factually impaired?

If you think you have all the facts, I got news for you.  You don't.  But if you put some lipstick on that chicken tonight, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it.


So, we should just take your word for it. I mean, there's zero evidence, but that's not important, right?
 
2013-08-26 06:39:11 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Mike_LowELL: Congratulations, Taxbongo!  Another disaster on your hands!

Taxbongo?  I'm no fan of the man, but your point is greatly watered down when you resort to childish name-calling.


He's been doing that a while now.  When it's not "Taxbongo" it's "Hussein."  It's like ringing a bell.  Pavlov would be proud.
 
2013-08-26 06:40:08 PM

AngryDragon: muck4doo: When do the anti-war protests start? It's been years since the last good protests.


He's right. I live nearish to dc, and war proteats dropped off SHARPLY immediately after the election. Some of the usual protest community should, by rights be busting out the signs and huge paper mache puppets right about now.

That is if they are primarily peace activists and not largely political shills.
 
2013-08-26 06:40:24 PM

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


You realize he was speaking in the Syrian govt's voice there, right?

Reflex much?
 
2013-08-26 06:42:19 PM

dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.

You practice to be this factually impaired?

If you think you have all the facts, I got news for you.  You don't.  But if you put some lipstick on that chicken tonight, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it.

So, we should just take your word for it. I mean, there's zero evidence, but that's not important, right?


Don't take my word, believe what you want.
 
2013-08-26 06:42:41 PM

Apik0r0s: TuteTibiImperes: You realize that no one who uses phrases like 'sock puppets of the Zionist entity' can ever hope to be taken seriously, right?

You realize he was speaking in the Syrian govt's voice there, right?

Reflex much?


Ah, my apologies then.  Middle East threads seem to trend towards good 'ole fashioned Jew-hatins' fairly often, I must have my sensitivity set to high.
 
2013-08-26 06:44:32 PM
Dare we call tne evidence a slam dunk?
 
2013-08-26 06:45:11 PM

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.
 
2013-08-26 06:45:42 PM

21-7-b: What does "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" mean?


It means that there are rebel forces who are openly aligned with Al Qaeda, and not just soldiers but their leaders. Link. This fact alone is enough for us to stay the hell out of it unless it's to kill a few rebels (I don't advocate doing that either but at least there would be some sense to it what with it being AQ related and all of that).
 
2013-08-26 06:45:54 PM
As the kids like to say... LOL Kerry.
 
2013-08-26 06:48:47 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.

You practice to be this factually impaired?

If you think you have all the facts, I got news for you.  You don't.  But if you put some lipstick on that chicken tonight, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it.

So, we should just take your word for it. I mean, there's zero evidence, but that's not important, right?

Don't take my word, believe what you want.


OK, then. I guess I'll just stick with what we actually have evidence to support.

fireclown: AngryDragon: muck4doo: When do the anti-war protests start? It's been years since the last good protests.

He's right. I live nearish to dc, and war proteats dropped off SHARPLY immediately after the election. Some of the usual protest community should, by rights be busting out the signs and huge paper mache puppets right about now.

That is if they are primarily peace activists and not largely political shills.


Well, unless you're talking about protesting the war in Afghanistan, wouldn't we need to actually have a war to protest?

Outside of that, this is one of those bad all-around things. Do nothing and watch the horrors escalate. Terrible.

Engage and be complicit in whatever happens and deal with your own aftermath/blowback.
 
2013-08-26 06:49:26 PM
 
2013-08-26 06:52:36 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.

You practice to be this factually impaired?

If you think you have all the facts, I got news for you.  You don't.  But if you put some lipstick on that chicken tonight, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it.


Nice attempt at subject change.  There is no, zero, feedback that Curveball was anything but a talking head that told the spooks what they wanted to hear.  Your premise that he was in effect "due" to be correct on something has no basis in fact.
 
2013-08-26 06:54:02 PM
This is going to suck. >_<
 
2013-08-26 06:54:25 PM

dr_blasto: Engage and be complicit in whatever happens and deal with your own aftermath/blowback.


Obama will do nothing. If he does, he's staring at Putin right across the table. And that won't happen, he already snubbed Pooty so he could play more golf. We do nothing.
 
2013-08-26 06:55:26 PM

Mike_LowELL: I didn't know that attempting to arouse emotion on an internet message board for my own amusement was trolling these days.


images.wikia.com
 
2013-08-26 06:57:21 PM

Mouser: [410x512 from https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-B-ySEFR-p-E/UhvTw_oU8PI/AAAAAAAABuI /mxGs1tR11cI/s512/40k20Khorne2001.jpg image 410x512]

Who cares, as long as there are more dead brown people, right?


Lemons?  I don't want your damn lemons!
 
2013-08-26 06:57:27 PM

2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: his data had some truth to it.

You practice to be this factually impaired?

If you think you have all the facts, I got news for you.  You don't.  But if you put some lipstick on that chicken tonight, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it.

Nice attempt at subject change.  There is no, zero, feedback that Curveball was anything but a talking head that told the spooks what they wanted to hear.  Your premise that he was in effect "due" to be correct on something has no basis in fact.


Fine, if you say so. I wish Sarin gas had a footprint like uranium or plutonium isotopes. At any rate, you never addressed my query about where Syria's gas came from.  Care to try that? They didn't make it.  And Putin didn't give it to them. Neither did Iran. Who did?  The Easter Bunny?
 
2013-08-26 06:57:32 PM
Question:  Why is it different if a person is killed by poison gas compared with say, a rocket, a sniper shot, run over by a tank, or killed by a mine?

Far more people have been killed by conventional methods in this conflict, what is so magical in peoples mind about choking to death or having you nervous system shut down over a shot to the head or chest that bleeds you out?  Both are horrible ways to die, but the world is outraged about gas being used while bullets simply receive a shrug of shoulders. Civil wars are horrible things, but if the situation wasn't worthy our involvement two weeks ago, I simply don't see what makes things all that different this week.  If we are going to respond, it should be limited to minor strikes on CCCI sites and maybe his air force.  You absolutely don't want to target the chemical weapons themselves as that could release them and kill many individuals downwind.
 
2013-08-26 06:58:05 PM

ad_rizzle: Mike_LowELL: I didn't know that attempting to arouse emotion on an internet message board for my own amusement was trolling these days.

[640x480 from http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/d/da/Fry_Looking_Squint.jpg image 640x480]


WTF do you think boards are for?
ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-08-26 06:58:35 PM

Captain Steroid: This is going to suck. >_<


We are a few sternly worded letters away from any action, at the least
 
2013-08-26 06:59:49 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it.


[[ citation needed ]]
 
2013-08-26 07:00:07 PM

21-7-b: That's true, but the bottom line is that America is the top dog.


Of what?  Freeing the shiat out of people?
 
2013-08-26 07:00:52 PM

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.


Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?
 
2013-08-26 07:01:35 PM

russsssman: Neither did the Holocaust. We shoulda just let the Jews figure it out, down to the last one.


Oh, is that why we entered WW2?
 
2013-08-26 07:01:35 PM

Lost Thought 00: Captain Steroid: This is going to suck. >_<

We are a few sternly worded letters away from any action, at the least


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
'Now go away, or we shall taunt you for the second time!'
 
2013-08-26 07:03:14 PM

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.
 
2013-08-26 07:04:20 PM

21-7-b: 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.

Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?


You've haven't read it yet, have you?
 
2013-08-26 07:04:26 PM

Daedalus27: Question:  Why is it different if a person is killed by poison gas compared with say, a rocket, a sniper shot, run over by a tank, or killed by a mine?

Far more people have been killed by conventional methods in this conflict, what is so magical in peoples mind about choking to death or having you nervous system shut down over a shot to the head or chest that bleeds you out?  Both are horrible ways to die, but the world is outraged about gas being used while bullets simply receive a shrug of shoulders. Civil wars are horrible things, but if the situation wasn't worthy our involvement two weeks ago, I simply don't see what makes things all that different this week.  If we are going to respond, it should be limited to minor strikes on CCCI sites and maybe his air force.  You absolutely don't want to target the chemical weapons themselves as that could release them and kill many individuals downwind.


Chemical weapons are banned because they tend to have more collateral damage than traditional weapons.  Targeting civilians is always against the rules of war, but it's understood that sometimes there will be civilian deaths when engaging legitimate military targets.  Chemical and biological agents are considered to put civilians at too high a risk however.
 
2013-08-26 07:06:27 PM

Ker_Thwap: As the kids like to say... LOL Kerry.


Heh, do the 'kids' even know who Kerry is? Wish I was joking.
 
2013-08-26 07:06:32 PM
Meet the new boss....
 
2013-08-26 07:08:07 PM

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


I'm honestly dissapointed by the armchair generals and tin foilers here...Looking at the pictures of the WMD 'victims' the dead Syrians here do not at all exhibited common telltale signs of chemical weapon symptoms.

If anyone remember the pics of the Kurds that SH gassed back in the day those bodes were literally frozen in state..The frozen state that is well known for persons who die immediately of nerve poisoning(sarin) is absent, the persons suffering are described to have dilated pupils when sarin and most other nerve agents actually cause your pupils to constrict. I just did not see them here.
 
2013-08-26 07:09:24 PM

Radioactive Ass: 21-7-b: What does "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" mean?

It means that there are rebel forces who are openly aligned with Al Qaeda, and not just soldiers but their leaders. Link. This fact alone is enough for us to stay the hell out of it unless it's to kill a few rebels (I don't advocate doing that either but at least there would be some sense to it what with it being AQ related and all of that).


Your link had nothing to do with the point you were making, ou must have pasted the wrong url. Anyway, I'm sure there has at times been cooperation between the various groups but the reality is very different link
 
2013-08-26 07:09:49 PM
WMD has been redefined to include things like an M67 fragmentary grenade. We're all guilty of war crimes.
 
2013-08-26 07:10:55 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 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.


lochgarry.files.wordpress.com

Then why did the Bush Administration shrug its' shoulders at Saddam's missing WMDs instead of shouting from the hills that they were all now in Syria?
 
2013-08-26 07:11:15 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it.

[[ citation needed ]]


Seriously, this. Sarin is an organophosphate (incecticide). Doesn't really take a whole lot of technology to produce....
 
2013-08-26 07:12:11 PM

cman: Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Remember the last time we went to war over WMDs in the mid-east?

AIPAC pays good money to keep your leaders on the string, it would be unfair were they to not earn that money by blowing a few thousand Syrian children into dust. They're just Arab animals, after all.


8/10

This will get a few bites


Naw, Apik0r0s is for real.

Unfortunately.
 
2013-08-26 07:13:23 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: 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.

Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?

You've haven't read it yet, have you?


Is that an admission that you were wrong?
 
2013-08-26 07:13:49 PM

Lost Thought 00: Captain Steroid: This is going to suck. >_<

We are a few sternly worded letters away from any action, at the least


I hope so. I'd really rather not have this turn into WWIII after we get involved against Assad leading China and Russia to get involved on Assad's side, and given the military prowess of some of our "allies", and the general feelings about us after the Spying thing, as well as 8 years of Bush, I'm not sure we could count on anyone but maybe Britain to back us up. Which means that, in all likelihood, despite possibly being technologically greater, we'd probably lose based on sheer numbers. Not to mention, you'd have the anti-American middle eastern factions piling on as well.

We're just not ready for another fight. We don't have the leadership or the resources to go toe to toe with a big force in a classic war for any length of time, not without some pretty big help from other nations...and really, besides China and Russia, who else is there? India?  They don't have the resources to go to war any more than we do. And herein lies the crux of our problem: We (and by we I mean Bush* and everyone who supported/mislead him depending on whom you believe the narrative from) blew a lot of the preparedness and fighting readiness by going on a campaign of liberation in Iraq and Afghanistan in a ham-fisted attempt to get "the terrorists". I was right there supporting it at the beginning.

Right now, considering the pace and dynamics of the battlefield something like Syria would involve if it turned into a bigger conflict (and unless Russia and China are all talk and no action, I don't see how they could not step in to support Assad along with the Iranians), I just don't see this as a winning proposition.  in fact, in my worst nightmares, it stars out as a simple depose-the-dictator-and-white-knight-for-the-rebellion and then turns into a giant escalation where our tactical choices go from which bombs to load onto the drones to how young do we want to draft and just how many nukes can we use without totally farking up the planet?

So, maybe a llot of this is paranoia, and maybe none of that will happen. But given our choices are the known of letting the two sides duke it out and stay the fark out of it or wading in like an idiot again with unpredictable results...god help me, let them kill each other and leave us out of it.
 
2013-08-26 07:13:57 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 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.

[540x406 from http://lochgarry.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/stv.jpg image 540x406]

Then why did the Bush Administration shrug its' shoulders at Saddam's missing WMDs instead of shouting from the hills that they were all now in Syria?


You'll have to ask them. It's a fair query.
 
2013-08-26 07:13:59 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Daedalus27: Question:  Why is it different if a person is killed by poison gas compared with say, a rocket, a sniper shot, run over by a tank, or killed by a mine?

Far more people have been killed by conventional methods in this conflict, what is so magical in peoples mind about choking to death or having you nervous system shut down over a shot to the head or chest that bleeds you out?  Both are horrible ways to die, but the world is outraged about gas being used while bullets simply receive a shrug of shoulders. Civil wars are horrible things, but if the situation wasn't worthy our involvement two weeks ago, I simply don't see what makes things all that different this week.  If we are going to respond, it should be limited to minor strikes on CCCI sites and maybe his air force.  You absolutely don't want to target the chemical weapons themselves as that could release them and kill many individuals downwind.

Chemical weapons are banned because they tend to have more collateral damage than traditional weapons.  Targeting civilians is always against the rules of war, but it's understood that sometimes there will be civilian deaths when engaging legitimate military targets.  Chemical and biological agents are considered to put civilians at too high a risk however.


I understand the theory behind it, but then again this is a civil war where arguably the civilians are also a part of the rebellion and providing aid and comfort to his foes and if the rebels are firing from civilian areas, it can become a legitimate military target. Of course the use should be proportionate but this conflict has moved toward the WW2 concepts of total war. Sure it is a war crime, but to be tried they have to survive and with the present forces, chances are the loser is going to be killed by the victor so there is less of an incentive to hold back.

And again it goes back to the point where if I fire a scud into a rebel held area killing dozens and injuring many (an act that has occurred repeatedly during this conflict), there isn't much of any reaction anywhere.  But lob a few dozen chemical rounds causing similar death and destruction and suddenly everyone stands up and makes noise (maybe not this chemical attack, but the earlier one which resulted in fewer deaths).  Effects are seemingly overlooked and only the means of causing death are focused on.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how they are dying whether it is incinerated in a nuclear blast, poisoned by gas, or blown up in a artillery barrage, your just as dead either way.
 
2013-08-26 07:14:43 PM

21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: 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.

Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?

You've haven't read it yet, have you?

Is that an admission that you were wrong?


No, it's an admission that you don't have the foggiest f*cking clue what you are talking about.
 
2013-08-26 07:18:43 PM

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.
 
2013-08-26 07:20:04 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: 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.

Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?

You've haven't read it yet, have you?

Is that an admission that you were wrong?

No, it's an admission that you don't have the foggiest f*cking clue what you are talking about.


Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and thought all the rebels were Al Qaeda.
 
2013-08-26 07:20:05 PM
I propose doing nothing, but issuing a strongly worded letter condemning the attacks.  That is the one and only way that America could really contribute anything without killing lots more people that don't need killin'.
 
2013-08-26 07:21:13 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: You'll have to ask them. It's a fair query.


Considering the intelligence apparatus at their disposal, that such a fact would have saved them a ton of face, and that there's no logical reason for Saddam to truck his chemical weapons stockpile to Syria while the combined military might of the United States and friends are playing for keeps, I'm going to stick with the conclusion that your fair query is as horseshiat as truther and birther conspiracies.
 
2013-08-26 07:21:29 PM
Lt. Cheese Weasel

Sarin shelf-life, curveball, the make-up of the rebels - you're totally clueless, aren't you?
 
2013-08-26 07:23:22 PM

21-7-b: Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and thought all the rebels were Al Qaeda.


i for one fully admit that I believed the Rebels were mostly Islamists.
 
2013-08-26 07:23:57 PM

21-7-b: Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and thought all the rebels were Al Qaeda.


i for one fully admit that I believed the Rebels were mostly Islamists.  (doesn't change my opinion on getting involved, however).
 
2013-08-26 07:25:38 PM

21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: 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.

Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?

You've haven't read it yet, have you?

Is that an admission that you were wrong?

No, it's an admission that you don't have the foggiest f*cking clue what you are talking about.

Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and thought all the rebels were Al Qaeda.


I didn't say 'all', don't move the posts.  To deny the rebels in Syria don't have AQ's help is just stupid, and I don't think you're stupid.
 
2013-08-26 07:25:49 PM
Oh, John Kerry said it.

Is the imaged seared... SEARED... into his brain?
 
2013-08-26 07:26:47 PM

Flab: Apik0r0s is for real.


QFT
 
2013-08-26 07:27:34 PM

russsssman: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah.. Neither did the Holocaust. We shoulda just let the Jews figure it out, down to the last one.


1. Japan bombed Perl Harbor
2. Germany, being an ally of Japan, declared war upon the United States

That actually did concern us. This Syria thing, we have nothing in it
 
2013-08-26 07:27:40 PM

russsssman: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah.. Neither did the Holocaust. We shoulda just let the Jews figure it out, down to the last one.


You do know that the Sunni extremists fighting Asad consider his Alawite supporters to be heretics, and have called for their extermination, right?

By attacking Asad, Obama is basically signing their death warrant.
 
2013-08-26 07:28:33 PM
"I really screwed the world with World War II, enjoying the repercussions?"
www.thedailyrash.com
 
2013-08-26 07:29:11 PM

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


No, this is the one where we blindly support everything Obama does because we have tied our self esteem to his performance.
 
2013-08-26 07:29:14 PM
Why am I supposed to care about Syria again?
 
2013-08-26 07:29:47 PM

Kit Fister: 21-7-b: Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and thought all the rebels were Al Qaeda.

i for one fully admit that I believed the Rebels were mostly Islamists.


If you feel like reading up
 
2013-08-26 07:30:43 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 21-7-b: 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.

Well, I thought i thought that anyone with a passing knowledge understood that the Al Qaeda element came late to the Syrian party and that their contingent is pretty small, eg Al Nusra - Strength 6,000 compared to Free Syrian Army - a separate entity - Size 80,000. So, I am confused as to what you meant by "the rebellion is clearly aligned to Al Qaeda" ?

You've haven't read it yet, have you?

Is that an admission that you were wrong?

No, it's an admission that you don't have the foggiest f*cking clue what you are talking about.

Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and thought all the rebels were Al Qaeda.

I didn't say 'all', don't move the posts.  To deny the rebels in Syria don't have AQ's help is just stupid, and I don't think you're stupid.


Check out the link i posted for kit
 
2013-08-26 07:31:27 PM

Mouser: By attacking Asad, Obama is basically signing their death warrant.


No, he's just executing the warrant that was signed in Tel Aviv and given to him by J Street.
 
2013-08-26 07:31:31 PM
I'm just waiting to post the headline, "Obama has been nearly identical to Bush in many areas, but at least he hasn't started multiple wars."
 
2013-08-26 07:34:15 PM

cman: russsssman: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah.. Neither did the Holocaust. We shoulda just let the Jews figure it out, down to the last one.

1. Japan bombed Perl Harbor
2. Germany, being an ally of Japan, declared war upon the United States

That actually did concern us. This Syria thing, we have nothing in it


semicomplete.com
 
2013-08-26 07:34:19 PM
Thanks Bush!

farking asshole.

This shiat never would have happened if we'd all voted for Obama years ago.
 
2013-08-26 07:34:23 PM

basemetal: make me some tea: basemetal: [850x567 from http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spr ay-Officer-Pike.jpg image 850x567]

I want to know what type of chemical weapon first.  We talking VX, Sarin, or some strong tear gas that caused some asthmatics to go nuts.

The videos showed a whole bunch of dead people.

Still want to know what kind of gas.


we'll know soon enough.  doctors on the ground say its a nerve agent for sure and the UN inspectors finally got some blood an tissue samples after being sniped at
 
2013-08-26 07:34:51 PM

BMFPitt: I'm just waiting to post the headline, "Obama has been nearly identical to Bush in many areas, but at least he hasn't started multiple wars."


Obama seems to finish wars rather than start them, but whatever
 
2013-08-26 07:34:58 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Lt. Cheese Weasel: You'll have to ask them. It's a fair query.

Considering the intelligence apparatus at their disposal, that such a fact would have saved them a ton of face, and that there's no logical reason for Saddam to truck his chemical weapons stockpile to Syria while the combined military might of the United States and friends are playing for keeps, I'm going to stick with the conclusion that your fair query is as horseshiat as truther and birther conspiracies.


If you really wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that they knew and didn't say anything because no one would really care if we attacked Iraq and it would allow us to go back in and get the guy Daddy failed to get, while if we said something, we'd have to deal with not only not being able to justify a war with Iraq, but also have to deal with Syria's allies should we ever have considered military action.  The fact that they kept with their lame story and never deviated to proclaim "lol we showed up at Saddam's palace, but all we found was this dude with a mushroom on his head saying that the WMDs were in another castle", however, puts the lie to it because either we didn't know they were moved (which would be a huge screwup by the Intelligence agencies if it were true), or the whole thing is a steaming pile to begin with and there were *gasp* no WMDs left in Iraq and Bush just wanted to play soldier in a bigger sandbox.

Unfortunately, I think we'll never know what actually happened that convinced Bush to go to hell and back to instigate a war with Iraq of all places, since we profited nothing by our excursion.
 
2013-08-26 07:35:24 PM

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

This is the thread in which conservatives and liberals of all sort band together for the greater good


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-08-26 07:35:39 PM

TuteTibiImperes: cman: russsssman: cman: It doesn't concern us

yeah.. Neither did the Holocaust. We shoulda just let the Jews figure it out, down to the last one.

1. Japan bombed Perl Harbor
2. Germany, being an ally of Japan, declared war upon the United States

That actually did concern us. This Syria thing, we have nothing in it

[700x473 from http://semicomplete.com/presentations/logstash-puppetconf-2012/images/ xkcd-perl.png image 700x473]


My web browser has autocorrect for spelling mistakes.

Unfortunately it does not yet have one for context spelling mistakes
 
2013-08-26 07:38:19 PM

Giltric: We should delay getting involved for as long as possible. The more of them that kill each other the better.



the only thing worth preserving there was the Aleppo Souk.  and since thats burned....
 
2013-08-26 07:39:37 PM

21-7-b: BMFPitt: I'm just waiting to post the headline, "Obama has been nearly identical to Bush in many areas, but at least he hasn't started multiple wars."

Obama seems to finish wars rather than start them, but whatever


To be fair, he really hasn't faced an opportunity that would really have put him to the test in that regard. He inherited two police actions and a shiatload of poor decisions from his predecessor, and other than using some bombs in Libya where no real intervention was needed, we haven't seen a case where it was even remotely justified.

The true test here is to see whether Obama follows in Bush's footsteps and declares that because WMDs, we must invade; or whether he decides that the political fallout from spearheading yet another intervention would only put one of the last nails in the US's coffin and thus stay the fark out of it unless or until the UN as a whole chose to act with military force -- and even then, hopefully opts to donate a few bombs, some jet fuel, and real-world ordnance delivery training of pilots to the cause instead of boots on the ground.

/holy shiat, I'm turning into a democrat.
//god help me.
 
2013-08-26 07:40:18 PM

Grandmaster_Slapnuts: [850x478 from http://rstvideo.com/trailer/files/2011/10/team-america-world-police2.j pg image 850x478]

Comin' again to save the mother-farkin' day.

/hot


About time
 
2013-08-26 07:42:05 PM
A total crock of shiat and a complete lie.
 
2013-08-26 07:43:50 PM
Maybe we should send Kerry to go check. Go Kerry, go go go.
 
2013-08-26 07:44:03 PM

Kit Fister: 21-7-b: BMFPitt: I'm just waiting to post the headline, "Obama has been nearly identical to Bush in many areas, but at least he hasn't started multiple wars."

Obama seems to finish wars rather than start them, but whatever

To be fair, he really hasn't faced an opportunity that would really have put him to the test in that regard. He inherited two police actions and a shiatload of poor decisions from his predecessor, and other than using some bombs in Libya where no real intervention was needed, we haven't seen a case where it was even remotely justified.

The true test here is to see whether Obama follows in Bush's footsteps and declares that because WMDs, we must invade; or whether he decides that the political fallout from spearheading yet another intervention would only put one of the last nails in the US's coffin and thus stay the fark out of it unless or until the UN as a whole chose to act with military force -- and even then, hopefully opts to donate a few bombs, some jet fuel, and real-world ordnance delivery training of pilots to the cause instead of boots on the ground.

/holy shiat, I'm turning into a democrat.
//god help me.


You're going to have to see past the UN. Did you read the link i posted for you?
 
2013-08-26 07:46:38 PM

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

This is the thread in which conservatives and liberals of all sort band together for the greater good

[597x392 from http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1340/03/134003954115 9.jpg image 597x392]


I think the sane people on both sides of the aisle have figured out that the only thing that comes from trying to get involved in the middle east is pain, suffering, and death, only to be further bled dry by the oil barons. 'Tis truly a cursed place, and one best left to rot.

/i propose we compromise with the Palestinians and just give Florida to the Israelis. Win-Win for everyone.
 
2013-08-26 07:46:53 PM

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.
 
2013-08-26 07:48:09 PM
They've been spreading this bullshiat about Syria for weeks now, trying as hard as they can to get everyone fired up about something. They made up this shiat about chemical weapons to get the people riled the same exact way they lied about WMDs. We bought it then, should we really buy it now? They're LYING to us. They're chomping at the bit to invade Syria, any chance they can get. It's all lies. Do NOT believe it. I have no idea what they WANT in Syria, but the fact is, they're going no matter what the reason. I'm so sick of this bullshiat. I saw it coming WEEKS ago.
 
2013-08-26 07:48:21 PM

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?
 
2013-08-26 07:50:36 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it. And Putin didn't give it to them. Neither did Iran.


Presenting facts not in evidence.
 
2013-08-26 07:51:43 PM

bwilson27: They've been spreading this bullshiat about Syria for weeks now, trying as hard as they can to get everyone fired up about something. They made up this shiat about chemical weapons to get the people riled the same exact way they lied about WMDs. We bought it then, should we really buy it now? They're LYING to us. They're chomping at the bit to invade Syria, any chance they can get. It's all lies. Do NOT believe it. I have no idea what they WANT in Syria, but the fact is, they're going no matter what the reason. I'm so sick of this bullshiat. I saw it coming WEEKS ago.


Oh no, I don't think they're Lying to us, I don't see what benefit it gets them when they know that acting against the ally of two major powers (and one which owns most of the US's debt and an increasing portion of our business interests) and I doubt they're so foolish as to believe that neither of Syria's biggest allies will get involved if we just scream WMDs as lout as we can before we rush in.

I think it's very likely someone somewhere in Syria let off some chemical weapons.

I just don't think that the majority of the people -- or the President -- have the stomach to run full-tilt into another war, despite what the goons like Kerry are pushing. So far, Obama's kept himself out of the scrum of people calling for us to go military on Syria, and for that he's earned just a little bit of respect from me.
 
2013-08-26 07:56:32 PM
Hey, why so Syrious?
 
2013-08-26 07:56:35 PM
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.
 
2013-08-26 07:58:48 PM

Lost Thought 00: Disgruntled Goat: And if it turns out that the rebels also used them...?

The UN (backed by the US), should be enforcing a mandatory ceasefire on both sides, and killing any who don't comply.


And just how the fark is that supposed to ever happen in a world where Russia has veto power on the UN and happens to be supporting the Assad regiem?
 
2013-08-26 07:59:11 PM
If we start bombing now Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics profit margins should look pretty phat by October.  Also they will be able to report some healthy projected earnings for the coming year.
 
2013-08-26 07:59:23 PM

2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it. And Putin didn't give it to them. Neither did Iran.

Presenting facts not in evidence.


Lt Cheese Weasel, let me spell it out for you:

A lot of nations have or can produce the type of chemical weapons supposedly used in Syria. Saddam supposedly had such weapons, but we never found any proof of them, just piles of old, inert, useless scrap that once had been.  Syria has such weapons, and is allied with a lot of nations which produce and/or could procure them.

Since we have yet to find hard, hands-on evidence of the source of these weapons, and since we really only have some second hand documentation on the attack, we don't have enough information to even say that Assad was the one responsible for it, let alone where he might have gotten the weapons. It's not like we're in a position to go all CSI on it, if we could even determine from any remaining traces where the chemical was made. Maybe if we were talking about something a little more complicated than an easily homemade substance, like, say, a particular strain of Smallpox or Anthrax or something, we might have a chance at tracing it back to a lab where it was grown. But, far as I know, Sarin is a pretty simple gas to produce in a simple lab.

/Disclaimer for the NSA: I am not, nor I have ever studied the production of any chemical, biological, or radiological agents for tactical delivery, nor have i any interest in further speculation or research on the ability to produce same. I am a simple meat popsicle.
 
2013-08-26 08:00:22 PM

Apik0r0s: Mouser: By attacking Asad, Obama is basically signing their death warrant.

No, he's just executing the warrant that was signed in Tel Aviv and given to him by J Street.


Yes, the Jew is using the Black as muscle against me, got it.

You know, I'm not half as offended by your bigotry as I am by your ignorance of religious history.  Sunni and Shi'a Muslims have been killing each other in that part of the world for centuries before Zionism was even thought of.  If you'd bother to crack a book, you'd know this.

But no, all you and your brain-dead Stormfront buddies can come up with is "it's de ebbil j00z fault!"  It's pathetic, really.
 
2013-08-26 08:00:26 PM
Does Syria even HAVE oil??  Let's get our priorities straight here, people.

[X]  Humanitarian crisis

[  ]  Exploitable resource*

*The war will pay for itself, no joke!!
 
2013-08-26 08:00:45 PM

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....
 
2013-08-26 08:02:18 PM

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.


In that region of the world, we already have zero credibility. I refer you to the previous Iraq campaign which hoodwinked the entire world and ended up with major egg all over our face, and our general behavior in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, Israel, etc. etc. etc. going back decades.

So, basically, all we get out of it is even MORE crap if we go in guns blazing without taking a second to realize what exactly the outcome might be.
 
2013-08-26 08:06:31 PM
Please keep Kerry away from the big boys games. He almost sounds like he is parroting what Israel told him to say. Yes I know its Syria, but gotta expand the empire after Palestine is wiped out. Plus Israel has already attacked, so.... Bomb Israel in retaliation?

A unstable Middle East is best for manipulators of the people of the Middle East.

/Show us evidence of who actually used the stuff and we will do something that does not involve another 3 trillion dollars.
 
2013-08-26 08:07:24 PM

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....


There may some day be a time when war is no longer needed, but we are far, far from that time.  I doubt that man will ever, without a major change to our species on the biological level, be completely free of violence or the baser natures that drive men like Hitler, Assad, etc. to do great evil to one another.  Hell, as long as humans continue to see differences of opinion as a reason to go to loud words and blows, or one neighbor finds reason to covet another's possessions, this kind of shiat will continue to happen.

All we can do is to actively prepare for peace while remaining vigilant and prepared to defend ourselves if necessary.
 
2013-08-26 08:10:42 PM
You  know what else is undeniable?

 i10.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-26 08:11:24 PM

Kit Fister: 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.

In that region of the world, we already have zero credibility. I refer you to the previous Iraq campaign which hoodwinked the entire world and ended up with major egg all over our face, and our general behavior in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, Israel, etc. etc. etc. going back decades.

So, basically, all we get out of it is even MORE crap if we go in guns blazing without taking a second to realize what exactly the outcome might be.


You think we don't have any credibility in the middle east?  We gained no new friends, but we have plenty of credibility.  One attack on new york brought 2 invasions and over a decade of war, with lots of bodies everywhere...  I think we have gained a kind of credibility...  The kind that says bad shiats gonna happen if you make us come over there...
 
2013-08-26 08:14:56 PM
Nobody, and I mean nobody, (especially not liberals) cares about Libya anymore - even though it's now a lawless jihadi war zone, more or less run by the Muslim Brotherhood.  However, it was useful for the dutiful state-media leading up to the last election, as it lasted months, not weeks.  'Operation Re-Election' created a lot of those neat commander-in-chief headlines that lead off the evening news (Slick Willy's 'Monica missiles' did the same thing).

Needless to say, there's no reporting on Libya anymore.

Syria will be useful in the exact same way.  The real budget fight is coming up in September.  The government has run out of money again and a large number of Republican lawmakers are refusing to pass a budget that funds Obamacare.

I would expect that the bombing will begin soon and will last as long as necessary for the state-media to remind the public that we must 'rally around the war-time president' and dispense with 'silly partisan bickering' when our troops are in harm's way.


/I WILL be proven right...
 
2013-08-26 08:16:12 PM

Daedalus27: Effects are seemingly overlooked and only the means of causing death are focused on.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how they are dying whether it is incinerated in a nuclear blast, poisoned by gas, or blown up in a artillery barrage, your just as dead either way.


So if the Ciberido Liberation Front were to kidnap you and decree your execution for crimes against Ciberidism, and the executioner gave you the choice of being shot in the head or burned at the stake, you'd just shrug and say, "Doesn't matter to me!  I'm just as dead either way.  Kill me any way you like."

And you think every single person who's ever died in war feels the same way, right?
 
2013-08-26 08:16:40 PM

Maul555: Kit Fister: 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.

In that region of the world, we already have zero credibility. I refer you to the previous Iraq campaign which hoodwinked the entire world and ended up with major egg all over our face, and our general behavior in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, Israel, etc. etc. etc. going back decades.

So, basically, all we get out of it is even MORE crap if we go in guns blazing without taking a second to realize what exactly the outcome might be.

You think we don't have any credibility in the middle east?  We gained no new friends, but we have plenty of credibility.  One attack on new york brought 2 invasions and over a decade of war, with lots of bodies everywhere...  I think we have gained a kind of credibility...  The kind that says bad shiats gonna happen if you make us come over there...


How's that workin out?
 
2013-08-26 08:19:46 PM

Giltric: Yeah...odds are we had assets in country for weeksdecades already.


ftfy
 
2013-08-26 08:20:11 PM
Such a bullshiat casus bellum.
Assad has won so now we need to liberate Syria's government into dust.
I miss being a kid and liking the idea of my country
 
2013-08-26 08:21:24 PM

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


Biden can drive his Trans Am there.
 
2013-08-26 08:22:28 PM

Neighborhood Watch: the bombing will begin soon


Or just skip the bombing and use those funds for keeping U.S. citizens healthy.
 
2013-08-26 08:24:00 PM

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
 
2013-08-26 08:24:10 PM
Fark libs that defend Obama on stuff like this, crack me up.  Bunch of farking hypocrites.  Not that I'm keeping score, but I've seen Obama defended on:

NSA spying on American citizens (It was Bush)
Drone strikes on American citizens (they had it coming)
Raiding more medical marijuana facilities than 8 years of  Bush (he was only enforcing the law never mind that he's issued a memo skirting the laws on immigration).
Use of Military in Libya without Congressional approval (it wasn't war!)
And now he's beating the war drum and you're gleefully beating it with him.
Going after whistleblowers (dirty traitors).

I really hate the GOP but liberals folding like a deck of cards on principles I used to think were important to you...piss me off as much as the GOP now.  You have no principles that are sacred anymore.  Stop justifying it because it's YOUR guy.
 
2013-08-26 08:25:03 PM
Knock knock...

Who's there?

www.photoandwallpapers.com
 FREEDOM.
 
2013-08-26 08:30:41 PM

Brontes: Nobel Peace prizes don't earn themselves


Winner.

Though, I honestly would have gone with:
Economies don't jump-start themselves without a good war...
 
2013-08-26 08:35:04 PM
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.
 
2013-08-26 08:36:11 PM

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.
 
2013-08-26 08:36:12 PM

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?
 
2013-08-26 08:38:08 PM

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.


4.bp.blogspot.com
Syria, when the bombs fell.
 
2013-08-26 08:42:12 PM

Maul555: Lost Thought 00: Disgruntled Goat: And if it turns out that the rebels also used them...?

The UN (backed by the US), should be enforcing a mandatory ceasefire on both sides, and killing any who don't comply.

And just how the fark is that supposed to ever happen in a world where Russia has veto power on the UN and happens to be supporting the Assad regiem?


You bribe Russia, obviously
 
2013-08-26 08:42:34 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-26 08:42:41 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-26 08:44:33 PM
 
2013-08-26 08:49:09 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.



Too late.  Our precious little king has already decreed that 'Assad has to go'.The CIA is already arming and training the 'rebels', including Al Qaeda (shhhh... that's a phony scandal, so don't tell anybody).  Red line after red line has been drawn in both Syria and Iran - and both are gleefully hopping over them with mocking laughter.

And as any rodeo clown can tell you, our precious little king does not like to be laughed at...
 
2013-08-26 08:54:53 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Nobody, and I mean nobody, (especially not liberals) cares about Libya anymore - even though it's now a lawless jihadi war zone, more or less run by the Muslim Brotherhood.  However, it was useful for the dutiful state-media leading up to the last election, as it lasted months, not weeks.  'Operation Re-Election' created a lot of those neat commander-in-chief headlines that lead off the evening news (Slick Willy's 'Monica missiles' did the same thing).

Needless to say, there's no reporting on Libya anymore.

Syria will be useful in the exact same way.  The real budget fight is coming up in September.  The government has run out of money again and a large number of Republican lawmakers are refusing to pass a budget that funds Obamacare.

I would expect that the bombing will begin soon and will last as long as necessary for the state-media to remind the public that we must 'rally around the war-time president' and dispense with 'silly partisan bickering' when our troops are in harm's way.


/I WILL be proven right...


I would expect that your death will be from auto-erotic asphyxiation while looking at a collage of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan press clippings.

/I will be just as right as you.
 
2013-08-26 08:59:23 PM

2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it. And Putin didn't give it to them. Neither did Iran.

Presenting facts not in evidence.


You mean like Bush going after Iraq to bulge his pocketbook? Sure....
 
2013-08-26 09:01:20 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it. And Putin didn't give it to them. Neither did Iran.

Presenting facts not in evidence.

You mean like Bush going after Iraq to bulge his pocketbook? Sure....


You continue to try to change the subject.

Have a nice day.
 
2013-08-26 09:01:39 PM
Is this the thread where all the Obamabots say "YES! LET'S GO" and all the teaparty patriots call Obama a warmongering baby killer?
 
2013-08-26 09:01:39 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 2wolves: Lt. Cheese Weasel: They didn't make it. And Putin didn't give it to them. Neither did Iran.

Presenting facts not in evidence.

You mean like Bush going after Iraq to bulge his pocketbook? Sure....


Hmmm I guess its true that an abundance of weed does make you paranoid.
 
2013-08-26 09:06:48 PM

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!!!

parchmentreviews.files.wordpress.com



 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!
 
2013-08-26 09:07:11 PM

Savage Belief: Is this the thread where all the Obamabots say "YES! LET'S GO" and all the teaparty patriots call Obama a warmongering baby killer?


No, I think this is the thread where every sane person sits down and soberly admits to the rrealities of war and truly weighs the costs. Before A-stan and Iraq II, we only knew, dimly, war as a fun exercise of sport during Iraq I, since we weren't heavily participating in Serbia and Blackhawk down was just a movie to most people. We didn't get that war is neither fun nor worthwhile save for the most extreme of circumstances.

We can go balls out into Syria but I believe it would be ill advised and demands a much greater sense of tact on our part.
 
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.
 
2013-08-26 10:49:30 PM

ciberido: Daedalus27: Effects are seemingly overlooked and only the means of causing death are focused on.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how they are dying whether it is incinerated in a nuclear blast, poisoned by gas, or blown up in a artillery barrage, your just as dead either way.

So if the Ciberido Liberation Front were to kidnap you and decree your execution for crimes against Ciberidism, and the executioner gave you the choice of being shot in the head or burned at the stake, you'd just shrug and say, "Doesn't matter to me!  I'm just as dead either way.  Kill me any way you like."

And you think every single person who's ever died in war feels the same way, right?


Would it matter to me personally, sure it would.  I would like to die at home in bed asleep and surrounded by extremely attractive members of the opposite sex that I just had carnal relations with multiple times if I had my choice. Of course there are more peaceful ways to die compared to others.  However is the UN going to hold a special session if I am shot in the head or burned at the stake, probably not.  I am one person of a majoritarian group who can't be discriminated against or harmed in a biased manner.

However from a policy and strategy perspective, why are these hundreds/thousands of deaths more important and worthy of intervention compared to the preceding hundred thousand deaths due to conventional military violence.  Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by rockets or aircraft have been occurring for months resulting in thousands of deaths with profound silence. If the choice is between bleeding out over several hours from a gut shot or shrapnel wound vs. a minute or two of poison gas shutting down my body, I might choose the poison gas.  I just would like to know why we are going to put more blood and treasure at risk in a conflict that has been going on for years killing tens of thousands every few months just because a few thousand more were killed.  If it wasn't worthy of our sacrifice before, why is it magically worth the sacrifice now?
 
2013-08-26 10:50:12 PM

Radioactive Ass: 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.



I agree completely with what you say, but I really need to get some new initials.

:-(
 
2013-08-26 10:53:04 PM
I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."
 
2013-08-26 10:55:12 PM
Bill Brasky?
 
2013-08-26 10:57:08 PM
May we please sit this one out? Both sides are people not to get involved with. If its that bad, let the UN make that call. Also, the last line FTA:

"One official suggested it is unlikely the U.S. will launch any strike while U.N. inspectors remain on the ground, for fear they could be taken hostage."

Really author? That's almost written with an implied *wink*wink*.
 
2013-08-26 10:57:52 PM

Daedalus27: ciberido: Daedalus27: Effects are seemingly overlooked and only the means of causing death are focused on.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how they are dying whether it is incinerated in a nuclear blast, poisoned by gas, or blown up in a artillery barrage, your just as dead either way.

So if the Ciberido Liberation Front were to kidnap you and decree your execution for crimes against Ciberidism, and the executioner gave you the choice of being shot in the head or burned at the stake, you'd just shrug and say, "Doesn't matter to me!  I'm just as dead either way.  Kill me any way you like."

And you think every single person who's ever died in war feels the same way, right?

Would it matter to me personally, sure it would.  I would like to die at home in bed asleep and surrounded by extremely attractive members of the opposite sex that I just had carnal relations with multiple times if I had my choice. Of course there are more peaceful ways to die compared to others.  However is the UN going to hold a special session if I am shot in the head or burned at the stake, probably not.  I am one person of a majoritarian group who can't be discriminated against or harmed in a biased manner.

However from a policy and strategy perspective, why are these hundreds/thousands of deaths more important and worthy of intervention compared to the preceding hundred thousand deaths due to conventional military violence.  Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by rockets or aircraft have been occurring for months resulting in thousands of deaths with profound silence. If the choice is between bleeding out over several hours from a gut shot or shrapnel wound vs. a minute or two of poison gas shutting down my body, I might choose the poison gas.  I just would like to know why we are going to put more blood and treasure at risk in a conflict that has been going on for years killing tens of thousands every few months just because a few thousand more were killed.  If it wasn't worthy of our ...


Because it was worthy, but realpolitik got in the way. Shame on Putin. Not that the man is capable of it.
 
2013-08-26 10:57:55 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: 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.


There is zero chance the US can our should do anything between diddly and shiat unless the UN assembles an international peacekeeping deal along the lines of the coalition during the Bosnia conflict. The fact that Russia won't allow the UN to make that choice means it is completely in their hands.

We should tell Russia the blood is on them and good luck with the spillover terrorism - not that they're not already used to it from the Chechnya experience. They need to get out of the way or deal with it themselves. If Obama pulls a GW Bush, then he's no better than Bush.

Fundamentally, we cannot keep doing this everywhere. We just can't. I know it is terrible in Syria, but we also have a society to maintain and I don't think we can keep asking our population to die in the Middle East. Give the machine a break and GTFO of Afghanistan already.
 
2013-08-26 11:02:42 PM

Popular Opinion: 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.


I was speaking of direct material support which was the claim being made and nothing else. From a pure standpoint in who gave who what to shoot we were a small player by far in comparison. Hell we armed the Saudis a 1000% more than Iraq.

As to the Iran\Iraq war we had good reasons to not like Iran (and to be fair they had the same about us) so helping Iraq with intel isn't really a big deal within that context. As tothe US knowing that they were going to use chemical weapons as a direct result of that intel you need to cite that. As I recall the US reaction was not favorable at all when it happened.

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocation to US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.
 
2013-08-26 11:05:39 PM

Darkrover2: Want to fix Syria, Rwanda, Mali, etc?

Close the West to immigration...how can the undeveloped world find it's patriots if everyone that want liberty and justice flees their homelands for 'the better life in the West'?

If everyone that wants freedom and opportunity flees to the US and Europe, then every country that doesn't have a strong culture and effective national institutions will simply become Syria or Rwanda.

Like Afghanistan...and letting that little teapot steep worked out well, did it not?


Afghanastan was just fine until Russia invaded it and the US decided to arm the rebels.
 
2013-08-26 11:05:42 PM

darth_badger: US wars are started with false flags and this will be the next one. This will keep people employed in America and is good for the military industrial complex.


The last two didn't prevent the great recession.
 
2013-08-26 11:06:09 PM
It is possible that this is a just moment in which to act. It is possible that all of the theories put forth here about distraction are bullshiat. It is possible that you are wrong and the powers that be are right.
 
2013-08-26 11:07:38 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."


the american people, or the government, is not responsible for protecting these people or being their saviors.
ultimately, they must decide their own collective fate.
personally, i am tired of the back and forth...get out, get in, get out, get in. get out, get in.
we're out. let's stay out.

fool us once, shame on you, fool us five times, we must be fricking idiots.
 
2013-08-26 11:10:13 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."


Here's the thing. In this situation the only way of stopping people from dying is by making other people die and possibly killing some of the people that you are trying to save. It's a shiat sammich no matter how you look at it and it's a good reason to just stay out of it altogether.
 
2013-08-26 11:12:30 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."


To expand on that...

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.
 
2013-08-26 11:15:01 PM

Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: 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.

I was speaking of direct material support which was the claim being made and nothing else. From a pure standpoint in who gave who what to shoot we were a small player by far in comparison. Hell we armed the Saudis a 1000% more than Iraq.

As to the Iran\Iraq war we had good reasons to not like Iran (and to be fair they had the same about us) so helping Iraq with intel isn't really a big deal within that context. As tothe US knowing that they were going to use chemical weapons as a direct result of that intel you need to cite that. As I recall the US reaction was not favorable at all when it happened

.

there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran
 
2013-08-26 11:17:28 PM

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.


Not an untrue statement by itself... but... the US getting involved will not de-esacalate the situation at all. It would do the exact opposite. This alone is a good reason to not get involved.
 
2013-08-26 11:17:38 PM
At least you stupid assholes can watch your country go up in flames. The Roman Empire too way too long to collapse from their corruption.
 
2013-08-26 11:21:16 PM

Popular Opinion: there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran


But nothing. The article claims that the US knew what Iraq would do (use chemical weapons) but gives no proof of that. In other words it's an opinion based upon hindsight.
 
2013-08-26 11:22:15 PM

Phil Moskowitz: The Roman Empire too way too long to collapse from their corruption.


Time to slow down on the vodak, sir.
 
2013-08-26 11:32:55 PM

Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran

But nothing. The article claims that the US knew what Iraq would do (use chemical weapons) but gives no proof of that. In other words it's an opinion based upon hindsight.


deny away!
 
2013-08-26 11:34:52 PM

Popular Opinion: Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran

But nothing. The article claims that the US knew what Iraq would do (use chemical weapons) but gives no proof of that. In other words it's an opinion based upon hindsight.

deny away!


That means you can't dig up a single quote from someone, "in the know" right?
 
2013-08-26 11:37:12 PM
 
2013-08-26 11:41:12 PM

Radioactive Ass: omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."

Here's the thing. In this situation the only way of stopping people from dying is by making other people die and possibly killing some of the people that you are trying to save. It's a shiat sammich no matter how you look at it and it's a good reason to just stay out of it altogether.


In this instance, we would be destroying Assad's air force. The only people dying are people in Assad's military. Don't forget that we'd be fighting an actual army this time, not a population that hates us.

That would be for the diplomatic corps to fark up later, and at that point the airplanes, helicopters, and tanks would no longer be in reach of a half-dozen factions of disorganized rebels.

You realize a possible consequence of doing nothing could be that Al-Qaeda acquires chemical weapons, planes, and tanks?

So long as youth unemployment in the middle east remains where it is, there will be no shortage of irrational young men to flock to Syria, fling themselves against Assad, and get themselves and several civilians killed in the process.

Another thing to consider: At this point the Syrian government's crimes against their own citizens has exceeded that of Iran and Egypt combined, even leaving the nerve gas aside. Assad will never reestablish peaceful rule.

Again, this does concern America. It concerns the whole world, because that's how our planet happens to be shaped, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

Ultimately, Syria (and the Middle East at large) are so important because they sit at the crossroads of three very, very different worlds, influenced by and influencing all of them. There is no escaping it, no matter how much we want to.
 
2013-08-26 11:42:40 PM
I don't farking care. Stop spending our money funding the military complex and wars in the middle east. Who honestly thinks this shiat is ever going to stop because we send in tomahawks and carpet bombs? Who honestly does not believe that the net effect of our actions in the middle is only to create more violence at our own financial expense? Get the fark out, permanently please. You have your farking dragnet, isn't that supposed to protect us you farking money grubbing scumbags?

/my bad
 
2013-08-26 11:49:14 PM

Radioactive Ass: I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocationto US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.


Rwanda is a shiathole next to a bunch of other shiatholes in an area of little strategic value to us.  Syria sits right next to two of our biggest allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, as well as Jordan, who we're on friendly terms with, and Saudi Arabia, which is obviously important for the global oil supply.

Plus, if bombing Assad pisses of China and Russia, all the better, we should relish the opportunity to let them know that their opinions don't dictate our actions.

The chemical weapons may be being used against his own citizens now, but what's to say that a Sarin-laden bomb or missile wouldn't be launched at Tel Aviv later down the road?  It's better to handle this quickly, let the Syrians dig out of the rubble and figure something out, and then re-evaluate about whether we need to go in again if the new regime doesn't work for our and our allies' interests.
 
2013-08-26 11:50:51 PM

Kit Fister: ManateeGag: yeah it does. didn't you know, we have to the world's police force. any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene. God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

Tell that to every case where the goddamn UN put the brunt of military action on the US.

The US is like that big, dumb kid everyone looks down on because he's "violent" until some other, smaller country or group needs him to come along and handle a problem. Neat thing is, foreign regimes can point us at someone else, plant plenty of evidence, and watch while we rush headlong towards leveling the fark out of them, all the while tacitly denouncing what we've done.

On the list of places that deserve our help, Syria's pretty goddamn far down the list, behind places like Columbia and Mexico, which we actually had a pretty big hand in screwing up, what with the drug war and all, and are thus much higher on the list of places that should get some intervention attention.


So let's say no to the UN and start working on helping Columbia and Mexico with real policies.

/I'm all for that.
 
2013-08-26 11:50:54 PM
Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.
 
2013-08-26 11:53:20 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Radioactive Ass: I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocationto US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.

Rwanda is a shiathole next to a bunch of other shiatholes in an area of little strategic value to us.  Syria sits right next to two of our biggest allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, as well as Jordan, who we're on friendly terms with, and Saudi Arabia, which is obviously important for the global oil supply.

Plus, if bombing Assad pisses of China and Russia, all the better, we should relish the opportunity to let them know that their opinions don't dictate our actions.

The chemical weapons may be being used against his own citizens now, but what's to say that a Sarin-laden bomb or missile wouldn't be launched at Tel Aviv later down the road?  It's better to handle this quickly, let the Syrians dig out of the rubble and figure something out, and then re-evaluate about whether we need to go in again if the new regime doesn't work for our and our allies' interests.


while i am not saying it happened, i would not put it past anyone to gas their own to turn the tide.
they would all be martyrs, and they would be sending the "casualties" to heaven with the greatest possible blessing, so it is not something they would even feel guilty about....
 
2013-08-27 12:04:29 AM

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


Honestly if you want to die for the cause I truly don't mind as long as I don't have to help pay for it. Actually, you should go. If you can rally up a platoon of like minded friends, I'd even drop that stipulation. I might actually pay extra.
 
2013-08-27 12:05:18 AM

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Radioactive Ass: I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocationto US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.

Rwanda is a shiathole next to a bunch of other shiatholes in an area of little strategic value to us.  Syria sits right next to two of our biggest allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, as well as Jordan, who we're on friendly terms with, and Saudi Arabia, which is obviously important for the global oil supply.

Plus, if bombing Assad pisses of China and Russia, all the better, we should relish the opportunity to let them know that their opinions don't dictate our actions.

The chemical weapons may be being used against his own citizens now, but what's to say that a Sarin-laden bomb or missile wouldn't be launched at Tel Aviv later down the road?  It's better to handle this quickly, let the Syrians dig out of the rubble and figure something out, and then re-evaluate about whether we need to go in again if the new regime doesn't work for our and our allies' interests.

while i am not saying it happened, i would not put it past anyone to gas their own to turn the tide.
they would all be martyrs, and they would be sending ...


Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.
 
2013-08-27 12:08:06 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.


our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?
 
2013-08-27 12:08:46 AM

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


A term invented by the last decent Republican President we had: Eisenhower. Interestingly, when he wrote the speech, he called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, but his advisers talked him down.
 
2013-08-27 12:10:47 AM

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?


To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.
 
2013-08-27 12:18:38 AM

Apik0r0s: 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.


Emotional sunk cost fallacy, plus the fear of admitting you were wrong.
 
2013-08-27 12:24:44 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.


Assad launching rockets that look like they were made from car exhaust parts, five miles away from the newly arrived UN weapons inspectors, seems a bit ridiculous to me.
 
2013-08-27 12:25:36 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.


do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...
 
2013-08-27 12:31:19 AM

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


upload.wikimedia.org
What someone who doesn't know shiat might look like.
 
2013-08-27 12:32:52 AM

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.

do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...


None of it was intentional.  Civilian collateral damage is an ugly fact of war, but ultimately unavoidable, especially due to the nature of the combatants/insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.
 
2013-08-27 12:33:00 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: In this instance, we would be destroying Assad's air force. The only people dying are people in Assad's military. Don't forget that we'd be fighting an actual army this time, not a population that hates us.


I'm pretty sure that the general population of Syria already hates us just for Iraq alone. Doing nothing will not change that nor will doing something that roughly half of the population of Syria dislikes change that. There is no win here which is exactly why we should stay out of it. Taking sides means agreeing with them, not taking sides means agreeing with neither of them or at least not supporting them. What happens if Assad wins after we attack him? Do you think that the world would be a better place then? What if our attacks makes him lose so he decides to retaliate on Tel Aviv with the rest of his chemical armaments? You want to see a shiatstorm? That would be it.

There is no win here. Sometimes the best move really is no move at all.
 
2013-08-27 12:33:46 AM

Phil Moskowitz: At least you stupid assholes can watch your country go up in flames. The Roman Empire too way too long to collapse from their corruption.


Canadian-like typing detected.
 
2013-08-27 12:39:27 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.

do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...

None of it was intentional.  Civilian collateral damage is an ugly fact of war, but ultimately unavoidable, especially due to the nature of the combatants/insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.


first of all, if they were targeting anything, it would be "enemy insurgents, terrorists, or foreign fighters" to them.
if they are attacking an enemy enclave, one must assume it is....full of enemies. doh!
if america thinks there is one bad guy, we'll blow up 50 people and go "oops".
i really don't see much difference there, weapons aside.
 
2013-08-27 12:39:41 AM

Brontes: 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.

The Iraq where we are greeted as liberators?  Sign me up!


Such as.
 
2013-08-27 12:49:37 AM

TuteTibiImperes: There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.


And there's a huge difference between making it a point to target only those known to be military targets and assuming that any male between 15 and 50 is automatically a target to be killed and added to the "militants killed" number for the week. We do that now, thanks Obama. It's like Vietnam and the "body count" for the press game.
 
2013-08-27 12:52:28 AM

cman: Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Remember the last time we went to war over WMDs in the mid-east?

AIPAC pays good money to keep your leaders on the string, it would be unfair were they to not earn that money by blowing a few thousand Syrian children into dust. They're just Arab animals, after all.


8/10

This will get a few bites


He's not trolling. I farkied him as an anti-Semite way back in the Iran threads.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:05 AM

Apik0r0s: TuteTibiImperes: There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.

And there's a huge difference between making it a point to target only those known to be military targets and assuming that any male between 15 and 50 is automatically a target to be killed and added to the "militants killed" number for the week. We do that now, thanks Obama. It's like Vietnam and the "body count" for the press game.


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.

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.

do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...

None of it was intentional.  Civilian collateral damage is an ugly fact of war, but ultimately unavoidable, especially due to the nature of the combatants/insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.

first of all, if they were targeting anything, it would be "enemy insurgents, terrorists, or foreign fighters" to them.
if they are attacking an enemy enclave, one must assume it is....full of enemies. doh!
if america thinks there is one bad guy, we'll blow up 50 people and go "oops".
i really don't see much difference there, weapons aside.


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.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:22 AM
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.
 
2013-08-27 12:58:08 AM

Amos Quito: I agree completely with what you say, but I really need to get some new initials.

:-(


I can sell you an alt cheap... Other than that talk to Drew.
 
2013-08-27 01:02:11 AM

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

[297x375 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Eisenhower_in_the_O val_Office.jpg image 297x375]
What someone who doesn't know shiat might look like.


No shiat.
 
2013-08-27 01:06:14 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: 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.



Writing in all caps doesn't make you any less wrong.
 
2013-08-27 01:06:51 AM

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


The really funny part of this is that less than 2 years into Bush's first term the anti-Bush people were screaming Bu.Bu.Bu.But Clinton and saying that it was well past the time to put the blame on any groundwork laid by him. Now we see the exact same thing only in reverse and the same people who had a problem with it in 2002 are having no problem with it now even when it's about stuff that is much more serious.

I said this back then and they swore up and down that that wouldn't happen... yet here we are.
 
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 485 of 485 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report