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

(The New York Times)   Russia: No. China: No. UK: No. Democrats: no. Republicans: no. Rest of American people: no. Obama: What?   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Michigan Republicans, Russia, Democrats, Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, United Nations Security Council  
•       •       •

4324 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:40 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-30 08:55:21 AM  
Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.
 
2013-08-30 09:01:29 AM  

Weaver95: I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


But something something red line!
 
2013-08-30 09:05:34 AM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


I think those that aren't absolutely against bombing Syrian sites are going more "what the hell? this is *actually* a violation of international law and if we don't do something this will set up a terrible precedent for when other countries decide to use chemical weapons" I mean, hell, Obama was completely against doing anything in Syria until the chemical weapons attacks. Even the damn Congress was badgering him to get involved in Syria and he said no. Now we have a clear violation of international law and common humanity and everyone is suddenly silent?

You think we're damned if we get involved, what happens 10 years from now when we get attacked by pissed off Syrian survivors who begged for some help to stop the usage of chemical attacks and we did nothing?

Do they have to use nukes before we care? Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care? The US is the one in the position to prevent this because we're the only ones left. We wanted to be the last remaining superpower in the world so it's about time we start taking up the responsibility of the title
 
2013-08-30 09:05:37 AM  
Like a spoiled rich kid, he will do whatever he wants because shut up you are stupid
 
2013-08-30 09:10:13 AM  
All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.
 
2013-08-30 09:11:48 AM  

LasersHurt: What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.


you mean we're not putting boots on the ground, doing an all out invasion and will be greeted as liberators? How dare you say this is not another Iraq!

/seriously guys, why the fark do you compare this to Iraq?
//if anything, compare to Libya
 
2013-08-30 09:19:33 AM  

somedude210: Do they have to use nukes before we care? Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care? The US is the one in the position to prevent this because we're the only ones left. We wanted to be the last remaining superpower in the world so it's about time we start taking up the responsibility of the title


We've let quite a few minor genocides slide since the USSR collapsed. We've got no legacy to uphold in that regard. If we're concerned about sheer destruction of peoples, there should be higher priorities than the escalation of a civil war where we're at least partially fueling the escalation by supporting rebelling factions.
 
2013-08-30 09:24:58 AM  
So now Obama is being too much of a leader?
 
2013-08-30 09:25:59 AM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.
 
2013-08-30 09:26:30 AM  
Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.
 
2013-08-30 09:26:52 AM  

incendi: We've let quite a few minor genocides slide since the USSR collapsed. We've got no legacy to uphold in that regard. If we're concerned about sheer destruction of peoples, there should be higher priorities than the escalation of a civil war where we're at least partially fueling the escalation by supporting rebelling factions.


okay, so we'll go with the "we've never done this before, why start now?" stance.

okay then, everybody turn off the coverage of this. We're not gonna give a damn about a people that isn't us, why bother hearing about it.

good news dictators around the world, you're free to use whatever means you want to use to keep your populace oppressed, no one's gonna give a flying fark about it so you won't have to worry about retaliation.
 
2013-08-30 09:27:40 AM  

James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.


Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!
 
2013-08-30 09:28:19 AM  

vygramul: This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.


didn't you get the memo? This is Iraq war x10. Troops everywhere, invasions and bombings, we're going to be there for 1000 years because fark it, people are dying.
 
2013-08-30 09:33:21 AM  

LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!


At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.
 
2013-08-30 09:33:56 AM  

James!: LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!

At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.


Good, too, Fark was running low on people trolling eachother about things that aren't happening.
 
2013-08-30 09:38:10 AM  
 
2013-08-30 09:38:16 AM  

LasersHurt: James!: LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!

At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.

Good, too, Fark was running low on people trolling eachother about things that aren't happening.


I was worried we we had his Peak Hypothetical Pant Wetting.

Truly it must be a renewable resource.
 
2013-08-30 09:40:28 AM  

James!: LasersHurt: James!: LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!

At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.

Good, too, Fark was running low on people trolling eachother about things that aren't happening.

I was worried we we had his Peak Hypothetical Pant Wetting.

Truly it must be a renewable resource.


I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to take our guns and give them to Al Qaeda.
 
2013-08-30 09:43:34 AM  

vygramul: Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.


Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.
 
2013-08-30 09:43:46 AM  

LasersHurt: James!: LasersHurt: James!: LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!

At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.

Good, too, Fark was running low on people trolling eachother about things that aren't happening.

I was worried we we had his Peak Hypothetical Pant Wetting.

Truly it must be a renewable resource.

I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to take our guns and give them to Al Qaeda.


www.blairmilne.com
 
2013-08-30 09:44:35 AM  
So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.
 
2013-08-30 09:46:09 AM  

Weaver95: Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.


Well they're not convenient, sure, but deadly?
 
2013-08-30 09:47:21 AM  
The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

Coalition of the Willing 2, WMD Boogaloo.
 
2013-08-30 09:47:49 AM  

Weaver95: vygramul: Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.

Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.


The Geneva Conventions say it's ok to blow someone's arms off with artillery, but you can't yank 'em off with horses. Yet that message isn't confusing?
 
2013-08-30 09:48:02 AM  
I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?
 
2013-08-30 09:48:06 AM  

vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.


I just don't see how bombing Syria would stop Assad from committing more atrocities. And even if by some miracle we actually killed that bastard, we would likely end up letting the more radical Islamic factions run whatever was left of the country.
 
2013-08-30 09:48:57 AM  

LasersHurt: Weaver95: Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.

Well they're not convenient, sure, but deadly?


Landmines. Stupid iPad autocorrect...
 
2013-08-30 09:49:00 AM  

vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.


I think the hammer should fall and fall hard but I think that the international community needs to step up.  Especially Europe since this shiat is basically a long road trip from happening in their countries.
 
2013-08-30 09:50:29 AM  
Assad tried to kill Obama's daddy.

/amidoinitrite?
 
2013-08-30 09:50:50 AM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


Write your senator, they still have the power to prevent war.  Obama is lame-duck and thus immune to pressure.
 
2013-08-30 09:51:48 AM  

vygramul: Weaver95: vygramul: Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.

Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.

The Geneva Conventions say it's ok to blow someone's arms off with artillery, but you can't yank 'em off with horses. Yet that message isn't confusing?


I think it's all pointless. The winners of any given conflict get to make up the rules and write the history books. The US trying to claim any sort of moral authority after the things we have done in our war on terror is...difficult to accept at face value.
 
2013-08-30 09:52:09 AM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


But what about the no bid rebuilding contracts?? They are worth billions!
 
2013-08-30 09:52:27 AM  
When they say "no" they mean pay me.
 
2013-08-30 09:52:59 AM  

somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


The moment the American people saw us torturing captives and decided it was ok because terrorism.
 
2013-08-30 09:53:23 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Assad tried to kill Obama's daddy.

/amidoinitrite?


I think Frank Marshall Davis died before Assad came to power.
 
2013-08-30 09:53:43 AM  

Weaver95: LasersHurt: Weaver95: Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.

Well they're not convenient, sure, but deadly?

Landmines. Stupid iPad autocorrect...


I do not enjoy typing more than about three words on an ipad without a bluetooth keyboard.
 
2013-08-30 09:54:11 AM  
We bomb a lot of different countries. It usually doesn't make the nightly news. As long as it's only bombs and drones, I have no issue with this.
 
2013-08-30 09:55:02 AM  

SithLord: Pants full of macaroni!!: Assad tried to kill Obama's daddy.

/amidoinitrite?

I think Frank Marshall Davis died before Assad came to power.


As if temporal continuity matters in politics.
 
2013-08-30 09:55:30 AM  
gotta respect Sammy Wilson's question to the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, and the heckler who gave the real answer

"Given that the Prime Minister already has evidence of at least 14 other uses of chemical weapons on smaller scales in Syria, why is it only now that he has recalled the House to discuss intervention?'

heckler "...america!..."
 
2013-08-30 09:55:53 AM  
They want a piece...

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-30 09:56:01 AM  
Administration - we need to teach Syria a lesson that this is not acceptable
The rest of the world - there is no chance this will teach them anything
 
2013-08-30 09:57:14 AM  

LasersHurt: I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to take our guns and give them to Al Qaeda.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-30 09:57:43 AM  

James!: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

I think the hammer should fall and fall hard but I think that the international community needs to step up.  Especially Europe since this shiat is basically a long road trip from happening in their countries.


Most of Europe has spent the last 20 years dismantling their militaries. We've been subsidizing their defense so long, they're practically a U.S. protectorate at this point.
 
2013-08-30 09:57:46 AM  

ikanreed: Write your senator, they still have the power to prevent war.


It became clear that they have zero interest in exerting their authority when they said Obama should call them back into session. They don't need the Emperor's permission to return to session. The fact they're asking for it proves they're cowards.
 
2013-08-30 09:58:26 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: James!: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

I think the hammer should fall and fall hard but I think that the international community needs to step up.  Especially Europe since this shiat is basically a long road trip from happening in their countries.

Most of Europe has spent the last 20 years dismantling their militaries. We've been subsidizing their defense so long, they're practically a U.S. protectorate at this point.


I'm sure that's what Libya thought when France was blowing the shiat out of them.
 
2013-08-30 10:00:09 AM  
Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

A meaningless war trifecta isn't a good thing to have achieved.
 
2013-08-30 10:00:19 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: James!: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

I think the hammer should fall and fall hard but I think that the international community needs to step up.  Especially Europe since this shiat is basically a long road trip from happening in their countries.

Most of Europe has spent the last 20 years dismantling their militaries. We've been subsidizing their defense so long, they're practically a U.S. protectorate at this point.


Yeah. They spent a trillion on health care for all their people. We spent a trillion on the most powerful military on earth. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to who got the better deal.
 
2013-08-30 10:01:34 AM  
And if he doesn't bomb Syria, these same people will say Obama is weak for not sticking to his Red Line.

And if a chemical bomb that originated in Syria goes off in downtown NY, these same people will ask why didn't Obama do anything.

The same type of people that make these political cartoons are the same people that are criticizing him for acting. This isn't about Syria or chemical weapons, it's about making Obama and America look bad.

www.wnd.com

img.allvoices.com
 
2013-08-30 10:02:43 AM  
Since we can't declare war on terror again, what will it be this time?  Angst?
 
2013-08-30 10:02:44 AM  

vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.


Bullshiat. You sound exactly like people saying we need to go war in Iraq because we need to do something. No, we don't. We have no moral obligation here. None.
 
2013-08-30 10:02:55 AM  

Granny_Panties: This isn't about Syria or chemical weapons, it's about making Obama and America look bad.


Correct. That's why people LOVE the "red line" comment - it's vague enough that they can argue that it means whatever they choose, and then argue that Obama is failing to do that/is doing that and it's bad/etc.
 
2013-08-30 10:03:13 AM  
The very things Obama ran against are the things he's doing himself.
Wire taps (on a vastly grander scale than GWB)? Check!
Intervening in middle-east squabbles despite public and international outcry? Check!

Do Nobel Peace prizes get revoked?
 
2013-08-30 10:05:02 AM  

Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.


That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.

The only thing we should be dropping on Syria at this point is packages of food, water, and medicine.
 
2013-08-30 10:06:37 AM  

clkeagle: Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.

The only thing we should be dropping on Syria at this point is packages of food, water, and medicine.


There might be some arguments made about controlling the dissemination of Chemical and other weapons to known Terrorist organizations on the ground. I mean maybe, I don't have the first hand info here, just devil's advocate.
 
2013-08-30 10:07:21 AM  

clkeagle: Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.


Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.
 
2013-08-30 10:08:51 AM  
I wonder what was revealed at the Russian-called session.
 
2013-08-30 10:09:30 AM  

LasersHurt: There might be some arguments made about controlling the dissemination of Chemical and other weapons to known Terrorist organizations on the ground. I mean maybe, I don't have the first hand info here, just devil's advocate.


I would gladly listen to those arguments. But nothing I've seen so far indicates that we have credible enough intelligence to limit strikes to only WMD storage and production facilities.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd love nothing more than to hear about strikes against a confirmed chemical weapons plant - no collateral damage - and no way for either Assad or the rebels (can we be honest and just call them al Qaeda already?) to do anything with what's left.
 
2013-08-30 10:09:55 AM  
We should give as good as we got.

During the American Civil War, there was no "assistance" from the Ottoman Empire, the Persians, nor even any nomadic Arab Emirs.

For either side.
 
2013-08-30 10:10:06 AM  

James!: LasersHurt: James!: LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!

At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.

Good, too, Fark was running low on people trolling eachother about things that aren't happening.

I was worried we we had his Peak Hypothetical Pant Wetting.

Truly it must be a renewable resource.


I see what you did there.
 
2013-08-30 10:11:13 AM  

clkeagle: LasersHurt: There might be some arguments made about controlling the dissemination of Chemical and other weapons to known Terrorist organizations on the ground. I mean maybe, I don't have the first hand info here, just devil's advocate.

I would gladly listen to those arguments. But nothing I've seen so far indicates that we have credible enough intelligence to limit strikes to only WMD storage and production facilities.


Nothing we've seen so far indicates that we are GOING to strike any particular thing at all. We just have to wait.
 
2013-08-30 10:11:15 AM  

somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


because morality has always been the excuse - never the actual reason
eventually most (not you) start to notice
 
2013-08-30 10:12:01 AM  

Nabb1: Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.


Talk about a scenario with no winners.

You know what wouldn't surprise me at this point? Finding out that Putin is supplying both sides of the conflict.
 
2013-08-30 10:13:48 AM  

somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.
 
2013-08-30 10:14:09 AM  
Even putting aside the potential moral ramifications of ignoring chemical attacks on unarmed civilians, I think it's absolutely silly that we're sitting here discussing whether or not it's in our interests to bomb Syrian chemical weapon sites and potential delivery systems. This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not. At the very least a targeted missile campaign from offshore could cripple his ability to use them or cripple the ability of the rebels to use them if they should get control of them.

You could argue, perhaps, that this could be one of those potential "blowback" situations down the road, but to sit and argue that there is no potential benefit to the U.S. and its allies of a targeted campaign is just absurd. This is shaping up to be one of those things where the American people scream against doing anything and then ten years down the road some extremist asshole steals a couple of warheads from the wrecked country and sets them off in a train station, then people are screaming because we didn't do anything when we had the chance.

/ I'm reminded of Mayor Quimby when I hear most of you talk
// "I'm sick of you people. You're nothing but a bunch of fickle mush heads!"
 
2013-08-30 10:14:53 AM  

bindlestiff2600: because morality has always been the excuse - never the actual reason
eventually most (not you) start to notice


so...we shouldn't even bother living up to the image we tout all the time?

oh well, at least you can sleep well at night knowing that your government will never use chemical weapons on you and no one will give a flying fark about it.
 
2013-08-30 10:15:40 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Since we can't declare war on terror again, what will it be this time?  Angst?


The Angst on Terror?

Sounds accurate.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:14 AM  

Granny_Panties: And if he doesn't bomb Syria, these same people will say Obama is weak for not sticking to his Red Line.

And if a chemical bomb that originated in Syria goes off in downtown NY, these same people will ask why didn't Obama do anything.

The same type of people that make these political cartoons are the same people that are criticizing him for acting. This isn't about Syria or chemical weapons, it's about making Obama and America look bad.


This. Just thought it needed reinforced.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:35 AM  

somedude210: LasersHurt: What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

you mean we're not putting boots on the ground, doing an all out invasion and will be greeted as liberators? How dare you say this is not another Iraq!

/seriously guys, why the fark do you compare this to Iraq?
//if anything, compare to Libya


Libya was also a crime.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:48 AM  

CheatCommando: Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.


command decision, no troops on the ground.

but no no, call me a chickenhawk. Heaven forbid we actually try and give a damn about people in this world besides ourselves.
 
2013-08-30 10:18:17 AM  
Perhaps we should start by assassinating Assad, and see where it goes from there.
 
2013-08-30 10:18:20 AM  

Ned Stark: Libya was also a crime.


so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?
 
2013-08-30 10:19:07 AM  

bindlestiff2600: somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?

because morality has always been the excuse - never the actual reason
eventually most (not you) start to notice


I don't think we have ever actually cared much about our fellow humans. Oh some of us do, but historically speaking any time we fought wars there were always solid well defined practical gains for our actions. Morality was never the only reason for our actions.
 
2013-08-30 10:19:26 AM  
Russia, China and the UK are out sure, but has he checked in with Poland?


/You forgot about Poland
//Never forget about Poland
 
2013-08-30 10:19:39 AM  

Ned Stark: somedude210: LasersHurt: What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

you mean we're not putting boots on the ground, doing an all out invasion and will be greeted as liberators? How dare you say this is not another Iraq!

/seriously guys, why the fark do you compare this to Iraq?
//if anything, compare to Libya

Libya was also a crime.


Farking Reagan.
 
2013-08-30 10:20:27 AM  

Ned Stark: Libya was also a crime.



According to whom?
 
2013-08-30 10:20:39 AM  
This whole situation is a mess. We should just walk away and let it burn.
 
2013-08-30 10:20:43 AM  
So will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make him a war criminal?

Just curious, since the libtards liked to through that accusation at Bush all the time even though he had a UN resolution he could point to to justify his attacks.
 
2013-08-30 10:21:12 AM  

Weaver95: I don't think we have ever actually cared much about our fellow humans. Oh some of us do, but historically speaking any time we fought wars there were always solid well defined practical gains for our actions. Morality was never the only reason for our actions.


Oh, please. Next, you'll tell me that we only get involved in major European conflicts when our own commercial trade ships get targetted by submarine attacks...
 
2013-08-30 10:21:19 AM  

James!: Wolf_Blitzer: James!: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

I think the hammer should fall and fall hard but I think that the international community needs to step up.  Especially Europe since this shiat is basically a long road trip from happening in their countries.

Most of Europe has spent the last 20 years dismantling their militaries. We've been subsidizing their defense so long, they're practically a U.S. protectorate at this point.

I'm sure that's what Libya thought when France was blowing the shiat out of them.


Libya proves my point completely. The operation was supposed to be Europe's time to shine, a chance for the U.S. to step back from being the world's policeman. But it was U.S. warplanes and missiles that took out the difficult targets at the onset, especially the air defense network. The US then took a backseat in terms of the actual combat operations, but was still providing most of the intelligence, CSAR, and especially aerial refueling, the logistical elements that aren't as visible as the combat jets but are probably even more essential. It was carefully stage-managed to give the appearance of European primacy, but the fact is Libya would've been essentially impossible without U.S. involvement.
 
2013-08-30 10:21:41 AM  

LasersHurt: All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.


I think I can guess how this particular shill strategy is going to play out:

Pre-strikes it's all 'calm down, Obama hasn't definitely said he's going to do anything.'
Once the strikes have happened, it'll be 'well, if you had a problem with Obama getting involved, perhaps you should have been more vocal at the time. No use getting outraged now'.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:21 AM  

somedude210: At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


When the second plane hit the twin towers.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:21 AM  

somedude210: Ned Stark: Libya was also a crime.

so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?


Benghazi? Who gives a shiat about some ambassador? Go derp somewhere else.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:42 AM  

vestona22: So will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make him a war criminal?

Just curious, since the libtards liked to through that accusation at Bush all the time even though he had a UN resolution he could point to to justify his attacks.


It's like having to consider different things differently physically HURTS some people.

The Numbers: LasersHurt: All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

I think I can guess how this particular shill strategy is going to play out:

Pre-strikes it's all 'calm down, Obama hasn't definitely said he's going to do anything.'
Once the strikes have happened, it'll be 'well, if you had a problem with Obama getting involved, perhaps you should have been more vocal at the time. No use getting outraged now'.


No, don't stroke your "the world isn't fair" boner on my post. Not for you.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:47 AM  

somedude210: so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?


If these idiots really thought that the action in Libya was criminal they'd have to acknowledge that nearly every conflict we've engaged in since the World War II was also criminal and that would entail admitting that some of their golden idols were, in fact, criminals just like that Obammy fellow.

So instead of actually taking any action they'll just continue to make empty, brainless and pointless statements about it and hope it erodes public confidence. It's the promise of the new American conservative movement. If they can't have America, nobody can.
 
2013-08-30 10:23:05 AM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


I'm tired of being the World Police. I thought it was stupid in the 80's, when I was in high school, and I think it's stupid now.

That said, can you really blame Obama? Nothing he does will be the "right" thing with these assholes on the Right, maybe he's going with his conscience on this. I still don't want to go bomb another country that's not a threat to us, but I can at least understand why he might be holding out. If nothing else, he may be waiting for the farking GOP to flip flop and then he will end up doing the "right" thing in their eyes. I still hope that we don't do anything, especially if we don't have the backing of the rest of the world.

But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.
 
2013-08-30 10:23:07 AM  
Nabb1:

Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.

i267.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-30 10:23:22 AM  

Nabb1: clkeagle: Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.

Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.


Then we finally get a chance to finish what the Cold War started, xonquor Russia and China, uniting the world under US Hegemony, bringing a worldwide golden age of peace and prosperity for everyone.

/you can twist these hypotheticals to any conclusion you wish
 
2013-08-30 10:23:53 AM  
Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?
 
2013-08-30 10:24:20 AM  
I think this is the key:

"The President must continue to make it clear that any military action he might pursue is for the sole purpose of deterring Assad from using chemical weapons again and is not a pretext for tilting the conflict in favor of the poorly organized and divided rebel forces. "

There are a lot of policy options on Syria that rank from terrible to sub-optimal. We clearly can't don't have the willpower to win the war for the rebels, and we don't know if we want to. Even the normally pro-interventionists are iffy on this one as it's just simply too complicated - it's not Libya.

In addition, we don't know if we can prevent further chemical weapons attacks because intelligence on where they are stored/produced is incomplete and/or outdated because of the situation on the ground. That said, it is very strongly agreed that the nonproliferation argument for some sort of intervention is much more important than the humanitarian one. Violators of the norm that WMDs should not be used need to be slapped down as hard as possible in order to dissuade others.

Therefore, the best the U.S. can do is destroy/capture the weapons it can find and bomb the crap out of the Syrian army units that can be identified as having used them. I'm all for that, but the messaging will be very, very difficult to get right. In fact, it might be a battle that has already been lost.
 
2013-08-30 10:25:51 AM  

gnosis301: Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?


Well, we tried to give the world a coke and that didn't work.
 
2013-08-30 10:29:10 AM  

somedude210: CheatCommando: Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.

command decision, no troops on the ground.

but no no, call me a chickenhawk. Heaven forbid we actually try and give a damn about people in this world besides ourselves.


You are the one calling for spending blood and treasure while sitting behind a keyboard. I think you fit the dictionary definition of chickenhawk very neatly.

Our military should be used to further compelling national interests, and for nothing more. I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time. Make one, and I will warn you that "what they are doing is wrong and we have the power to stop it" is not one.
 
2013-08-30 10:29:11 AM  
I support bombing Syria because of its use of nerve gas.


NPR interviewed a retired general this morning who explained they went to nerve agents as the rebels had been occupying a Damascus neighborhood, were using anti-aircraft missiles to keep government aircraft away. So the Syrian government went to gas warfare to make the rebels withdraw.

I understand everyone's issues with Iraq as I was really pissed about that myself. However, this appears not to be the case.

Sometimes the only superpower has to act to enforce international law, like in Kosovo, etc.
 
2013-08-30 10:29:37 AM  

Ned Stark: Benghazi? Who gives a shiat about some ambassador? Go derp somewhere else.


no, I'm saying that if Libya was an actual crime, Benghazi would've been the spark that would've started the impeachment proceedings, but that never got off the ground. So I say again, where is this crime in Libya?
 
2013-08-30 10:30:11 AM  
Don't forget Grumpy!

cdn.grumpycats.com
 
2013-08-30 10:30:24 AM  

ourbigdumbmouth: Like a spoiled rich kid, he will do whatever he wants because shut up you are stupid


It makes for a good argument that the president is controlled by another interest. You decide which one you think it is. Bankers, military industrial complex, Israel, reptilian shape-shifters. Either way, he is just another puppet.
 
2013-08-30 10:30:53 AM  
sorry Obama, nobel peace prize winner, but maybe you slept through GWB's phony war?

Anyway, we're just not seeing murdering thousands of brown people as the answer to someone murdering hundreds of brown people.
 
2013-08-30 10:32:06 AM  

skozlaw: somedude210: so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?

If these idiots really thought that the action in Libya was criminal they'd have to acknowledge that nearly every conflict we've engaged in since the World War II was also criminal and that would entail admitting that some of their golden idols were, in fact, criminals just like that Obammy fellow.

So instead of actually taking any action they'll just continue to make empty, brainless and pointless statements about it and hope it erodes public confidence. It's the promise of the new American conservative movement. If they can't have America, nobody can.


Pretty much every conflict the US has engaged in since WW2 has been criminal.

What golden idols have I asserted to exist? I am not aware that I have erected any.
 
2013-08-30 10:32:20 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: In fact, it might be a battle that has already been lost.


Because Americans are petty, ignorant and fickle.

Basically, we seem to be in a situation where a huge portion of America mindlessly acceded to the invasion of Iraq and didn't hold Bush accountable for his abandonment of Afghanistan and the deterioration we saw there for our troops that were left behind, so now they're going to take their frustration and fatigue over their own terrible decision-making out on Syria by.... mindlessly rejecting the possibility of any sort of intervention.

I can't respect the opinion that says we shouldn't even try to protect innocents in the conflict from something as heinous as chemical attacks, but at least I can understand it. But the knee-jerk opposition doesn't even seem to rise to THAT level becasue if it did at least the opponents should be smart enough to see that there is an interest in both dissuading others who might try to use these weapons on populations or our own troops in the future AND an opportunity to try and weaken the ability of an unstable country and its dictator to disseminate (willfully or otherwise) weapons that could be eventually used against us by terror groups.

What's so frustrating is that Americans refuse to think about anything. They just knee-jerk went along with the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, got burned, so now they're just going to swing completely in the opposite direction. And then we'll sit around five years later wondering how some crazy al quaeda agent who had been fighting in Syria to set off a sarin bomb in the middle of the Super Bowl or something and why nothing was done to prevent it.

I mean, there's plenty of reasons not to get involved in any great detail, a few not to do anything, but people are just basically saying "No Syria because I farked up with Iraq" and that's just stupid.
 
2013-08-30 10:33:16 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Nabb1:

Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.

[i267.photobucket.com image 452x472]


LOL. Come on, man, work with me here. It's Friday.
 
2013-08-30 10:34:00 AM  
Obama needs to take people's attention from all the evil shiat he's been caught at home, so it's bombing time!
 
2013-08-30 10:34:13 AM  

CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.


The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.
 
2013-08-30 10:34:28 AM  

Ned Stark: Pretty much every conflict the US has engaged in since WW2 has been criminal.


According to my father, the conflicts we took part in in South America during the 1980s don't count as criminal because the Monroe Doctrine and that Grenada was a threat to our security
 
2013-08-30 10:34:48 AM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: LasersHurt: All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

I think I can guess how this particular shill strategy is going to play out:

Pre-strikes it's all 'calm down, Obama hasn't definitely said he's going to do anything.'
Once the strikes have happened, it'll be 'well, if you had a problem with Obama getting involved, perhaps you should have been more vocal at the time. No use getting outraged now'.

No, don't stroke your "the world isn't fair" boner on my post. Not for you.


And they say Republicans are the ones who always bring cocks into things :)

Genuine question Lasers, how much notice are you expecting to be given about the action Obama takes? I mean, do you think he's going to announce beforehand when and where strikes would occur?
 
2013-08-30 10:34:56 AM  
How's that "He knows what's best for us and will save us in spite of ourselves." sh*t treating you?
 
2013-08-30 10:35:12 AM  

AirForceVet: I support bombing Syria because of its use of nerve gas.


NPR interviewed a retired general this morning who explained they went to nerve agents as the rebels had been occupying a Damascus neighborhood, were using anti-aircraft missiles to keep government aircraft away. So the Syrian government went to gas warfare to make the rebels withdraw.

I understand everyone's issues with Iraq as I was really pissed about that myself. However, this appears not to be the case.

Sometimes the only superpower has to act to enforce international law, like in Kosovo, etc.


This. There are no good options here because the Syrian rebels aren't exactly good guys. But if we let this go, we're telling the world that it's okay to gas civilians, as long as they're people we don't like.
 
2013-08-30 10:35:41 AM  
If we bomb anyone, anywhere it should be once and for all with a devastating nuclear attack.
Get their attention and tell them to behave.

Any way this goes, Obama looks as ad as he actually is, which isn't a bad thing.
 
2013-08-30 10:36:24 AM  

Ned Stark: What golden idols have I asserted to exist? I am not aware that I have erected any.


Unless you've personally become the "American conservative movement" I wasn't talking directly to you, now was I, Sparky? I know your scheme is to reflexively play that silly "both sides are bad" game, that's why I basically ignore you.
 
2013-08-30 10:36:50 AM  

LasersHurt: vestona22: So will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make him a war criminal?

Just curious, since the libtards liked to through that accusation at Bush all the time even though he had a UN resolution he could point to to justify his attacks.

It's like having to consider different things differently physically HURTS some people.

The Numbers: LasersHurt: All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

I think I can guess how this particular shill strategy is going to play out:

Pre-strikes it's all 'calm down, Obama hasn't definitely said he's going to do anything.'
Once the strikes have happened, it'll be 'well, if you had a problem with Obama getting involved, perhaps you should have been more vocal at the time. No use getting outraged now'.

No, don't stroke your "the world isn't fair" boner on my post. Not for you.


Well that was a stupid deflection. Is that the limit of your intellect? I'm guessing you're a libtard.

The question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?
 
2013-08-30 10:36:52 AM  
themarketingnutz.com

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-30 10:37:59 AM  

The Numbers: Genuine question Lasers, how much notice are you expecting to be given about the action Obama takes? I mean, do you think he's going to announce beforehand when and where strikes would occur?


What strikes?

My point, because it seems you're confused here, is not "You can't be against getting involved militarily." It's "You can't judge Obama's Hypocritical invasion of Syria just like Iraq," because that isn't a thing that has happened or is happening. You can't even honestly judge his strikes, because we don't know if there will be some, what they'll be, etc. There is not enough information about the future for the level of reaction some posters have - that's the long and short of it.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:02 AM  
So anyways, Obama is going to bomb some stuff in Syria.  He has no choice.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:08 AM  

gnosis301: Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?


dasbut.com
 
2013-08-30 10:38:11 AM  

somedude210: Ned Stark: Benghazi? Who gives a shiat about some ambassador? Go derp somewhere else.

no, I'm saying that if Libya was an actual crime, Benghazi would've been the spark that would've started the impeachment proceedings, but that never got off the ground. So I say again, where is this crime in Libya?


You're making all kinds of deranged assumptions here. What combination of forces in Congress has ANY interest in curtailing the US's ability to go kill whoever? Especially to the extent they would cast down a president over it.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:40 AM  
Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

I want to see the kind of agents the U.S. Army can come up with in the 21st century.  We've probably got stuff that makes VX look like Obsession for Men.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:53 AM  

vestona22: libtard


lol
 
2013-08-30 10:38:58 AM  
To all of you who think we have a "moral obligation" to humanity.. where were you when millions were being slaughtered in Africa?  Didn't think so..   All of this is just more pandering to Israel. The problem is that this time they did a piss poor job of scheming up a boogieman to scare the Merkins™ into attacking one of their enemies.

/ Go find a large cactus and write "moral obligation to humanity"  on it, then fark yourself repeatedly with it in the stinky hole.
 
2013-08-30 10:39:36 AM  
I'm all for not picking a winner  AND getting to bomb shiat.  I say we make a no fly zone, bomb anything on either side of this that is capable of deploying chemical weapons or targets the US forces.  Say "You can fight all you want, just not with the chemical weapons."  If they misbehave after that, just start dropping satellite pics of the country randomly.  This will give both sides equal intel on the other's forces.  They can then attack military, not civilian targets.  Win, win, really.
 
2013-08-30 10:39:54 AM  
A few points:

A self-proclaimed red line is a foolish reason for war

There are no such things as Red Lines in sane foreign policy and Obama showed himself an amateur by allowing himself to be boxed in by proclaiming one.  What kind of fool enters into a war, killing people including innocent civilians and spending millions or billions of dollars we allegedly don't have, with no plan or strategy whatsoever, all because he's afraid of looking weak or fickle?  At some point you have to allow a little bruising to your pride rather than allowing emotions to goad you into pointless violence.

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Enforcing some sort of abstract "norm" against the use of chemical weapons is a joke.  Where was this principle when Iraq was gassing hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War?  Or when Israel used white phosphorus against Palestinians and Lebanese?  Americans used WF and depleted uranium munitions on Iraqis & Afghans?  It seems the real norm is "Don't use chemical weapons while being someone the US doesn't like."

Besides, why is killing people with chemical weapons worse than killing them with bullets, bombs, starvation, etc?  Is there a distinction there that's worth going to war over?

The intelligence on the alleged chemical attack is no "slam dunk."

A.) it has not been proven that there was a gas attack, B.) if there were an attack, it has not been proven who committed it, C.) if it had been committed by Syrian government forces, it has not been proven that it was ordered by the high command, and D.) even if it had been committed and ordered by Assad, how does a "limited strike" send more of a message than doing nothing at all?

Those acting like there's no doubt about a chemical attack seem to have forgotten the "slam dunk" intelligence claims about WMD in Iraq.  That was only 10 years ago!

The decision to go to war should not be just the president's to make

This is NOT a national emergency, and thus Obama should not be able to initiate war without congressional debate & approval.  How can we call ourselves a democracy, much less the foremost democracy in the world, when we allow one man to take us into a war of choice without any check?  Are we less a democracy than Britain, who did allow a debate?  Do we now elect an unaccountable king every 4 years?
 
2013-08-30 10:40:16 AM  
Sure lets bomb the chemical stock piles we know about so the syrian troops guarding the ones we dont know about have an incentive to desert. You all relize that bombing makes it more likely that terrorists get chemical weapons, not less, right?
 
2013-08-30 10:41:24 AM  

ArkPanda: Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

I want to see the kind of agents the U.S. Army can come up with in the 21st century.  We've probably got stuff that makes VX look like Obsession for Men.


We (the US) haven't manufactured chemical weapons in decades. That stuff is largely by, in and for tin-pot oppressive regimes and rogue states.
 
2013-08-30 10:42:56 AM  

skozlaw: This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not.


Mikey1969: But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.


Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?
 
2013-08-30 10:44:28 AM  
How long before Obama realized Putin has been playing him like a carp?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b876a8bc035a
 
2013-08-30 10:45:14 AM  

Nabb1: ArkPanda: Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

I want to see the kind of agents the U.S. Army can come up with in the 21st century.  We've probably got stuff that makes VX look like Obsession for Men.

We (the US) haven't manufactured chemical weapons in decades. That stuff is largely by, in and for tin-pot oppressive regimes and rogue states.


Right.  Because there are rules about that sort of thing.  Except now there aren't.
 
2013-08-30 10:45:17 AM  

skozlaw: What's so frustrating is that Americans refuse to think about anything. They just knee-jerk went along with the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, got burned, so now they're just going to swing completely in the opposite direction.


Nicely put. This debate has so far been a lot of heat and very little light. Nothing has even happened yet militarily, and people are already wailing about killing thousands of "brown people" and World War III. People are complaining that we're rushing into this, which may turn out to be true, but as of now, nothing has happened yet. Anybody claiming they know what is going on at this point is a liar. There is a lot of grey, complicated real estate between "do nothing" and "quagmire."
 
2013-08-30 10:45:32 AM  

skozlaw: Ned Stark: What golden idols have I asserted to exist? I am not aware that I have erected any.

Unless you've personally become the "American conservative movement" I wasn't talking directly to you, now was I, Sparky? I know your scheme is to reflexively play that silly "both sides are bad" game, that's why I basically ignore you.


Its the "so vote x" part that's intellectually dishonset.

They really are all villains.
 
2013-08-30 10:45:53 AM  

jack_o_the_hills: To all of you who think we have a "moral obligation" to humanity.. where were you when millions were being slaughtered in Africa?


We had this discussion yesterday evening. There is a fundamental difference in capability between stopping the use of chemical weapons and stopping warring tribes from going on a rape and pillage campaign through remote villages. One can be effectively accomplished from offshore with missiles, the other requires a massive detachment to actually meet the enemy head-on in the battlefield.

It is dishonest to compare Syria to things like Darfur. The two situations and the options surrounding them are completely unalike.
 
2013-08-30 10:45:56 AM  

vestona22: The question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?


The question doesn't have anything near enough information to be answered. Does "unilaterally" mean without UN approval, or does Congress disapprove as well? What new information do we get about chemical weapons being used in Syria between now and when the attack commences? What is the scale and nature of our attack?

It's a complex situation. You will not be able to ask a simple question and get a simple answer.

Besides, I find your question faulty in its initial assumption. You assume that it was the initial involvement in Iraq that made Bush a war criminal. I disagree. It was torture. Without torture, Bush would have been a moron, an awful president, and a puppet for evil men, but not a war criminal.
 
2013-08-30 10:46:17 AM  

jack_o_the_hills: To all of you who think we have a "moral obligation" to humanity.. where were you when millions were being slaughtered in Africa? Didn't think so.. All of this is just more pandering to Israel. The problem is that this time they did a piss poor job of scheming up a boogieman to scare the Merkins™ into attacking one of their enemies.


in 94? Yeah, I was 5 at the time. And I still think we should've done something, just as we should've done something after Saddam gassed the Kurds.

we're not an occupational force anymore (or at least shouldn't be), so we should at the very least enforce the laws the international community can't. This is a violation of law that has existed since before the UN.
 
2013-08-30 10:47:15 AM  

thurstonxhowell: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

Bullshiat. You sound exactly like people saying we need to go war in Iraq because we need to do something. No, we don't. We have no moral obligation here. None.


Well, considering under the last administration we pissed all over the Geneva Convention and tortured willy nilly, you may have a point... But I'm not sure I like it.
 
2013-08-30 10:47:41 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


We've had this discussion as well. They received them from numerous sources, including Egypt and Iraq. Nobody has ever claimed Iraq never had WMDs, they had a very large cache of them in the 80s and they used them on several occasions. This has nothing to do with Iraq in 2003 which had none.

Any more inane questions?
 
2013-08-30 10:48:10 AM  

vygramul: gnosis301: Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?

[dasbut.com image 480x400]


Is that going to replace the snake flag?
 
2013-08-30 10:48:26 AM  

qorkfiend: CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.

The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.


Still pretty weak sauce at this point.

skozlaw: One can be effectively accomplished from offshore with missiles


[Citation needed]
 
2013-08-30 10:48:38 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: skozlaw: This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not.

Mikey1969: But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.

Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


Derp.

Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq? So desperate to justify the invasion and embarassment for supporting Bush that you will look for anything to ease that burden?

It is possible to simply admit that you believed the lies at the time. It happens, it happened to a lot of people - including most of Congress and even the UN.
 
2013-08-30 10:49:51 AM  
Military men saw their friends get torn apart by artillery. They saw 18 year-old boys gut-shot and crying out for their mothers. They heard scores of moans of pain in the darkness in no-man's land. They lived through trenchfoot, PTSD, thousands of men buried alive as a result of bombardments.

Then they saw gas, and were horrified. They said, "THAT has to be made illegal. There's a limit to our barbarity."

I haven't experienced it. But the guys who did insisted there's a difference. When soldiers who lived through some of the most barbarous wars in history say something is exceptionally so, I'm not inclined to disbelieve them. When farking HITLER felt, even against the Slavic hordes, slaves to Jewish Communism, advancing on an undeserving German people, that chemical weapons were too much of an abomination to consider using...

Yeah, I'm going to argue it's different.
 
2013-08-30 10:49:58 AM  

The Muthaship: How's that "He knows what's best for us and will save us in spite of ourselves." sh*t treating you?


This is too much derp for a Friday. Have a good weekend, folks.
 
2013-08-30 10:51:08 AM  

somedude210: Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

I think those that aren't absolutely against bombing Syrian sites are going more "what the hell? this is *actually* a violation of international law and if we don't do something this will set up a terrible precedent for when other countries decide to use chemical weapons" I mean, hell, Obama was completely against doing anything in Syria until the chemical weapons attacks. Even the damn Congress was badgering him to get involved in Syria and he said no. Now we have a clear violation of international law and common humanity and everyone is suddenly silent?

You think we're damned if we get involved, what happens 10 years from now when we get attacked by pissed off Syrian survivors who begged for some help to stop the usage of chemical attacks and we did nothing?

Do they have to use nukes before we care? Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care? The US is the one in the position to prevent this because we're the only ones left. We wanted to be the last remaining superpower in the world so it's about time we start taking up the responsibility of the title


The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?
 
2013-08-30 10:51:21 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


l2.yimg.com
 
2013-08-30 10:51:53 AM  
He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?
 
2013-08-30 10:52:21 AM  

qorkfiend: The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah


If we want to prevent the former, we should be supporting Assad.
AQ hates the Shia heretics more than it hates the US. infidel.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:01 AM  

CheatCommando: qorkfiend: CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.

The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.

Still pretty weak sauce at this point.


How do you figure? Admittedly it's a more immediate interest for our allies (Israel, Europe) who are geographically closer to Syria than the United States, but I think preventing Al Qaeda from acquiring a large stockpile of nerve gas - especially with a large number of US troops not too far away in Iraq - might qualify.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:01 AM  

Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?


I thought the death count from last week upped to 1300?
 
2013-08-30 10:53:10 AM  

Ned Stark: Its the "so vote x" part that's intellectually dishonset.


I didn't say your opinions were intellectually dishonest.

To the contrary, my problem with you is that your opinions seem to lack any intellect at all. You just lash out mindlessly at everyone on every side of you without ever displaying any evidence that you've put any effort into understanding any of their opinions or motivations and without acknowledging that you're living in a world with a huge number of competing ideas and opinions that need to be weighed on their individual merits and viewed as a wide spectrum of possibilities that are rarely inherently simply right or wrong.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:27 AM  

Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?


Missiles and bullets are generally targeted at enemy combatants. They can kill innocents, of course, but usually they do not.

Gas makes no distinctions. It's an uncontrollable weapon.

This could be why, or at least part.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:43 AM  

He_Hate_Me: Americans used WP and depleted uranium munitions on Iraqis & Afghans?  It seems the real norm is "Don't use chemical weapons while being someone the US doesn't like."


WP and DU are not even remotely the same as nerve agents.
 
2013-08-30 10:54:08 AM  

give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?


Tear gas is a chemical weapon...
 
2013-08-30 10:54:41 AM  

LasersHurt: vestona22: libtard

lol


And the question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?
 
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: skozlaw: This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not.

Mikey1969: But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.

Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


Oh yeah, this one's been bouncing around lately... Back when they were supposed to have been shipping tons and tons of the stuff out of Iraq, quite a few people pointed out just how much of a convoy would be required to ship that much shiat. Kinda hard to hide, but sure, whatever...
 
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM  
What moral obligation to we have to stop the systematic rape and murder in West Africa? What moral obligation do we have to stop people from enslaving children and turning them into soldiers? What moral obligation to we have to stop the genocide and starvation?

Oh right. Israel doesn't care about West Africa, so fark em.
 
2013-08-30 10:55:46 AM  

DRFS Rich: thurstonxhowell: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

Bullshiat. You sound exactly like people saying we need to go war in Iraq because we need to do something. No, we don't. We have no moral obligation here. None.

Well, considering under the last administration we pissed all over the Geneva Convention and tortured willy nilly, you may have a point... But I'm not sure I like it.


The term "sending a message" is the part that gets me (in both directions, action or not) Does anyone think Assad gives a crap about the message? He has stated that Syria will NOT be controlled by other countries.
 
2013-08-30 10:55:50 AM  

He_Hate_Me: Are we less a democracy than Britain, who did allow a debate?  Do we now elect an unaccountable king every 4 years?


Congress does not need to go groveling to the emperor to please call them into session. That's just ceding more power to the imperial presidency. Congress may call itself into session on its own authority. Those farking cowards just don't want to assert themselves.
 
2013-08-30 10:55:59 AM  

someonelse: skozlaw: What's so frustrating is that Americans refuse to think about anything. They just knee-jerk went along with the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, got burned, so now they're just going to swing completely in the opposite direction.

Nicely put. This debate has so far been a lot of heat and very little light. Nothing has even happened yet militarily, and people are already wailing about killing thousands of "brown people" and World War III. People are complaining that we're rushing into this, which may turn out to be true, but as of now, nothing has happened yet. Anybody claiming they know what is going on at this point is a liar. There is a lot of grey, complicated real estate between "do nothing" and "quagmire."


Especially when you have a political leadership that is inept as Barney Fife.
Nothing new there.
Last best president was Eisenhower.
 
2013-08-30 10:56:35 AM  

dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?


Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.
 
2013-08-30 10:56:44 AM  

thurstonxhowell: vestona22: The question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?

The question doesn't have anything near enough information to be answered. Does "unilaterally" mean without UN approval, or does Congress disapprove as well? What new information do we get about chemical weapons being used in Syria between now and when the attack commences? What is the scale and nature of our attack?

It's a complex situation. You will not be able to ask a simple question and get a simple answer.

Besides, I find your question faulty in its initial assumption. You assume that it was the initial involvement in Iraq that made Bush a war criminal. I disagree. It was torture. Without torture, Bush would have been a moron, an awful president, and a puppet for evil men, but not a war criminal.


My question has nothing to do with Bush.

International law doesn't care what Congress has to say. The UN has not approved any attack. So, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?
 
2013-08-30 10:56:50 AM  

LasersHurt: There is not enough information about the future for the level of reaction some posters have - that's the long and short of it.


Which would be just fine and dandy if there were an expectation that specific information is going to be provided in good time to allow for a full debate of the merits of such actions. But my question to you is whether you genuinely believe said specifics are going to provided so as to allow for such a debate.

There's a saying that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. In other words, strike first then follow up with 'Whoops, my bad. Did you not want me to do that?'. It would not come as a surprise if the first we hear about the final decision Obama has taken on US involvement is when they start announcing what targets have been struck.
 
2013-08-30 10:56:55 AM  

netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Pepper spray.
 
2013-08-30 10:57:37 AM  

netweavr: Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Do you prefer the term "Biological-chemical weapons"?
 
2013-08-30 10:57:40 AM  

The Numbers: LasersHurt: There is not enough information about the future for the level of reaction some posters have - that's the long and short of it.

Which would be just fine and dandy if there were an expectation that specific information is going to be provided in good time to allow for a full debate of the merits of such actions. But my question to you is whether you genuinely believe said specifics are going to provided so as to allow for such a debate.

There's a saying that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. In other words, strike first then follow up with 'Whoops, my bad. Did you not want me to do that?'. It would not come as a surprise if the first we hear about the final decision Obama has taken on US involvement is when they start announcing what targets have been struck.


You're arguing something unrelated to my earlier posts, to which you were responding.
 
2013-08-30 10:57:49 AM  

netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


So are my farts after eating Taco Bell.
 
2013-08-30 10:57:52 AM  

what_now: What moral obligation to we have to stop the systematic rape and murder in West Africa? What moral obligation do we have to stop people from enslaving children and turning them into soldiers? What moral obligation to we have to stop the genocide and starvation?

Oh right. Israel doesn't care about West Africa, so fark em.


Ask AIPAC what they care about.
Israel is doomed and it'll be karma coming back around.
 
2013-08-30 10:58:35 AM  

qorkfiend: CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.

The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.


The problem is the only way we can stop that is to invade the country with 250,000 troops-on Assad's side.  Remember, Al Queda is actively fighting  against Assad.  Anything we do against Assad increases (not decreases) the chances of this happening.  (We aren't going to actually attack the depots where the gas is stored to destory it because it would leak out and kill civilians.)
 
2013-08-30 11:01:05 AM  

s2s2s2: dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?

Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.


His (Sada's) claims, though, tend to contradict the findings of the "Duffler Report" which judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.
Hmm, it's almost like someone on a book tour to promote said book made extraordinary claims without substantiated evidence, that contradicted more backed-up claims.  So, thanks s2s2s2 for making things up.
 
2013-08-30 11:01:27 AM  

s2s2s2: dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?

Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.


Was his codename "Curveball"?
 
2013-08-30 11:01:30 AM  

somedude210: Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?

I thought the death count from last week upped to 1300?


Whatever.  I still don't fully understand why that one event requires a response but the rest of the war for the past two years didn't.

I can see nukes being bad, because one nuke can kill 100,000 people or more at once.  Chemical weapons, however, don't have the same sort of death toll.
 
2013-08-30 11:03:21 AM  

Geotpf: qorkfiend: CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.

The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.

The problem is the only way we can stop that is to invade the country with 250,000 troops-on Assad's side.  Remember, Al Queda is actively fighting  against Assad.  Anything we do against Assad increases (not decreases) the chances of this happening.  (We aren't going to actually attack the depots where the gas is stored to destory it because it would leak out and kill civilians.)


I know. The distinct lack of good options are why I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.

When I'm feeling extra-tinfoily, I think that the rebels may have set off the gas themselves in order to publicly blame Assad and provoke exactly the kind of response we seem to be contemplating.
 
2013-08-30 11:03:22 AM  

Geotpf: somedude210: Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?

I thought the death count from last week upped to 1300?

Whatever.  I still don't fully understand why that one event requires a response but the rest of the war for the past two years didn't.

I can see nukes being bad, because one nuke can kill 100,000 people or more at once.  Chemical weapons, however, don't have the same sort of death toll.


Link
 
2013-08-30 11:03:28 AM  
Israel & Turkey bomb Syria. Rest of world: "Meh"

Syria bombs Lebanon. Rest of world: "Meh"

Russia threatens to bomb Qatar. Rest of world: "Meh"

US plans to form a coalition to bomb Syria. Rest of world: "OMG how dare u"
 
2013-08-30 11:03:32 AM  

vygramul: s2s2s2: dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?

Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.

Was his codename "Curveball"?


No, but he was on a book tour, and trying to get an official position in the pro-U.S. cabinet.
 
2013-08-30 11:03:40 AM  

He_Hate_Me: A few points:

A self-proclaimed red line is a foolish reason for war

There are no such things as Red Lines in sane foreign policy and Obama showed himself an amateur by allowing himself to be boxed in by proclaiming one.  What kind of fool enters into a war, killing people including innocent civilians and spending millions or billions of dollars we allegedly don't have, with no plan or strategy whatsoever, all because he's afraid of looking weak or fickle?  At some point you have to allow a little bruising to your pride rather than allowing emotions to goad you into pointless violence.

The Cuban Missile Crisis would like a word with you

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Enforcing some sort of abstract "norm" against the use of chemical weapons is a joke.  Where was this principle when Iraq was gassing hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War?  Or when Israel used white phosphorus against Palestinians and Lebanese?  Americans used WF and depleted uranium munitions on Iraqis & Afghans?  It seems the real norm is "Don't use chemical weapons while being someone the US doesn't like."

The UN disagrees, that's why weapons inspectors are there today

Besides, why is killing people with chemical weapons worse than killing them with bullets, bombs, starvation, etc?  Is there a distinction there that's worth going to war over?

The intelligence on the alleged chemical attack is no "slam dunk."

A.) it has not been proven that there was a gas attack, B.) if there were an attack, it has not been proven who committed it, C.) if it had been committed by Syrian government forces, it has not been proven that it was ordered by the high command, and D.) even if it had been committed and ordered by Assad, how does a "limited strike" send more of a message than doing nothing at all?

On this I agree.  Everyone should wait for the UN report

Those acting like there's no doubt about a chemical attack seem to have forgotten the "slam dunk" intelligence claims about WMD in Iraq.  That was only 10 years ago!

The decision to go to war should not be just the president's to make

This is NOT a national emergency, and thus Ob ...


People have not forgotten, that is why UK voted down action
 
2013-08-30 11:06:54 AM  
And jesus christ s2s2s2, we knew way-the-hell back in the early 2000s that Syria was making their own chemical weapons.  This is such a stupid line of reasoning, you should feel stupid for presenting it.
 
2013-08-30 11:07:47 AM  

Geotpf: somedude210: Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?

I thought the death count from last week upped to 1300?

Whatever.  I still don't fully understand why that one event requires a response but the rest of the war for the past two years didn't.

I can see nukes being bad, because one nuke can kill 100,000 people or more at once.  Chemical weapons, however, don't have the same sort of death toll.


Less about death toll than providing an excuse for NATO to get involved due to the 1925 protocol.
 
2013-08-30 11:07:56 AM  

s2s2s2: dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?

Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.


While we enforced a no-fly zone with the best aircraft, satellite and land based detection capabilities on the entire planet. Not to mention the ability to project strike capabilities like no other organization in the world, all the while we were beating war drums in anticipation for an invasion and the President at the time had an itchy trigger finger looking for an excuse. Let us not mention Assad and Hussein were no friends to each other, and Iran, being good buddies with Assad and having a long and terrible relationship with Hussein really don't make this sound very reasonable.

Chalabi said they were developing nukes.

None of this supports the war in Iraq. But, aside from that, we know Syria has chemical weapons. We know chemical weapons have been deployed. An earlier use was indicated as well, that attack was presumed to be from the rebellion side. Nobody is claiming that it didn't happen, the argument is over who did it. We're still not sure what weapons were used. When the UN pulls their inspectors out and issues the report, that may help clear some of it up.
 
2013-08-30 11:08:25 AM  

vestona22: My question has nothing to do with Bush.


Your original question featured you stumbling all over yourself to use the idiotic term "libtards" in order to accuse people of hypocrisy. Don't bullshiat me. We're on the internet and I can still see what you said.

vestona22: International law doesn't care what Congress has to say. The UN has not approved any attack. So, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?


Y'know what, fine, since you keep demanding a simple answer to a simple question about a complex situation, no matter how stupid that idea is. I'll give you one.

International law doesn't say that waging war without UN approval is a war crime. It's a violation of the UN charter and may be considered illegal, but it is not a war crime. It wasn't when Bush did it and it wouldn't be if Obama did it. Which doesn't make it right or legal.
 
2013-08-30 11:08:26 AM  

netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...



Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.
 
2013-08-30 11:08:56 AM  
The big problem I see is there's no where for Assad to go at this point. It's not a situation where we can get his forces to withdraw from rebel held areas with large civillian populations, because it's those civililian population centers that the rebels are advancing on, and he's not an invading Army. It's almost a no win situation, and once the chemical weapons come out I'm just going to assume that this civil war is going to drag on without any political solution for years and year.

Still, the use of chemical weapons really should trigger international intervention, and missle strikes seem like the only option that doesn't involve sending in troops. The only question I see is where do we bomb and how much do we bomb.

It's such an awful situation and I don't envy any decision maker on this one.
 
2013-08-30 11:10:54 AM  
Don't we have black ops that can simply take Assad out?
 
2013-08-30 11:11:52 AM  

ikanreed: s2s2s2: dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?

Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.

His (Sada's) claims, though, tend to contradict the findings of the "Duffler Report" which judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.Hmm, it's almost like someone on a book tour to promote said book made extraordinary claims without substantiated evidence, that contradicted more backed-up claims.  So, thanks s2s2s2 for making things up.


Got it. If you write and promote a book, you are a liar.
 
2013-08-30 11:12:45 AM  

what_now: Don't we have black ops that can simply take Assad out?


And then what?
 
2013-08-30 11:12:53 AM  

incendi: Weaver95: I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

But something something red line!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

There is your red line. Right there.

*I* would be more than willing to drag my fat ass over there if they asked.

You can't just DO that. Those are kids .. not combatants
 
2013-08-30 11:13:48 AM  

He_Hate_Me: A self-proclaimed red line is a foolish reason for war

There are no such things as Red Lines in sane foreign policy and Obama showed himself an amateur by allowing himself to be boxed in by proclaiming one. What kind of fool enters into a war, killing people including innocent civilians and spending millions or billions of dollars we allegedly don't have, with no plan or strategy whatsoever, all because he's afraid of looking weak or fickle? At some point you have to allow a little bruising to your pride rather than allowing emotions to goad you into pointless violence.


this is the driving force.  we will now see what the president is made of.
 
2013-08-30 11:13:55 AM  

ikanreed: And jesus christ s2s2s2, we knew way-the-hell back in the early 2000s that Syria was making their own chemical weapons.  This is such a stupid line of reasoning, you should feel stupid for presenting it.


If you say so, random person on the Internet.
 
2013-08-30 11:14:10 AM  

what_now: Don't we have black ops that can simply take Assad out?


Yep, soldiers are magic, and don't require any logistical support.

//I know you're joking.
 
2013-08-30 11:14:37 AM  
It seems like a stupid move IMO, a punitive action in the form of some telegraphed for days if not weeks cruise missiles... Either do something sustained that will flip the war and support secular rebels or do nothing and wait.
 
2013-08-30 11:15:42 AM  

give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.
 
2013-08-30 11:16:19 AM  

dr_blasto: what_now: Don't we have black ops that can simply take Assad out?

And then what?


if it is even possible it would be a true punitive action, not just shooting missiles at random targets.
 
2013-08-30 11:16:48 AM  

s2s2s2: ikanreed: And jesus christ s2s2s2, we knew way-the-hell back in the early 2000s that Syria was making their own chemical weapons.  This is such a stupid line of reasoning, you should feel stupid for presenting it.

If you say so, random person on the Internet.


Or, you could do basic research on the subject.  Google news archives.  Wikipedia article about Syria and chemical weapons.  You know a basic self priming on the history of something before forming an opinion about it.
 
2013-08-30 11:17:40 AM  
and btw...  I would be happy with just establishing a no-fly zone to keep Assad from bombing more schools with thermite.
 
2013-08-30 11:18:10 AM  

qorkfiend: Admittedly it's a more immediate interest for our allies (Israel, Europe) who are geographically closer to Syria


All of whom but Israel appear to not find it compelling, and Israel wakes up in the morning with indigestion and decides bombing Damascus is in their national interest.
 
2013-08-30 11:18:44 AM  

netweavr: give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.


durr: "Police and private self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.  "
 
2013-08-30 11:20:09 AM  

what_now: Don't we have black ops that can simply take Assad out?


We made that bad idea illegal after our bungled Cuban assassination attempts.
 
2013-08-30 11:21:08 AM  
Time for some tough love. Ready? Here goes:
i714.photobucket.com
You guys suck at nation building.
 
2013-08-30 11:21:27 AM  

Shadow Blasko: and btw...  I would be happy with just establishing a no-fly zone to keep Assad from bombing more schools with thermite.


What about NK?  They are starving people to death and executing artists and musicians who may or may not have spoken critically about dear leader.  We probably better get over there, too.

And about a dozen other places that governments are committing ongoing atrocities against their own people....
 
2013-08-30 11:23:30 AM  

The Muthaship: Shadow Blasko: and btw...  I would be happy with just establishing a no-fly zone to keep Assad from bombing more schools with thermite.

What about NK?  They are starving people to death and executing artists and musicians who may or may not have spoken critically about dear leader.  We probably better get over there, too.

And about a dozen other places that governments are committing ongoing atrocities against their own people....


They don't suffer from the disadvantage of having been recently covered by news outlets.
 
2013-08-30 11:27:22 AM  
When Obama drew his red lines, were there any Republicans complaining about the possible military action it reflected?

If you didn't complain that the red line was too harsh, you can't complain about the military action Obama is probably going to end up taking.  Unless you position is that Syrian government didn't in fact cross the red line.
 
2013-08-30 11:27:57 AM  

Headso: dr_blasto: what_now: Don't we have black ops that can simply take Assad out?

And then what?

if it is even possible it would be a true punitive action, not just shooting missiles at random targets.


You're still left with the people that actually set it off, additionally you still have the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. Killing Assad may eliminate the only thing that is keeping the large-scale deployment of those weapons.

What would make more sense is identifying the location of chemical weapons, weapon manufacturing sites and systems used to deploy them. Perform a strike on those targets, then pull back. Of course, I don't know if we even have the intelligence to determine where they are, it is entirely possible that Syria has successfully hidden them from the rest of the world.

I am pretty sure nobody would argue that turning a chemical weapons bunker into a crater and incinerating everything in it would be frowned upon by anyone.
 
2013-08-30 11:28:11 AM  

Shadow Blasko: and btw...  I would be happy with just establishing a no-fly zone to keep Assad from bombing more schools with thermite.


That might be what Obama has to fall back to.  The problem becomes how long you sustain it for.
 
2013-08-30 11:28:33 AM  

s2s2s2: ikanreed: s2s2s2: dr_blasto: Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq?

Former Iraqi General, Georges Sada, who was close with the pilots that flew them out on 56 flights, to Syria.

His (Sada's) claims, though, tend to contradict the findings of the "Duffler Report" which judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.Hmm, it's almost like someone on a book tour to promote said book made extraordinary claims without substantiated evidence, that contradicted more backed-up claims.  So, thanks s2s2s2 for making things up.

Got it. If you write and promote a book, you are a liar.


You believe everything you read on WND don't you?
 
2013-08-30 11:29:56 AM  

Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?


I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.
 
2013-08-30 11:30:36 AM  

netweavr: give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.


From Article 2 of this treaty:


9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

 
2013-08-30 11:33:08 AM  
Well... at least we have the French... which honestly surprises me. Open cheese sack, remove testicles.

Hollande still up for strike
Let the UN conduct its investigation. If there's evidence that they find that Assad used the weapons... well... his regime must be punished. Until then, let's whip out just enough rhetorical dick to make sure that punishing the regime is still an option if the time comes.
 
2013-08-30 11:33:52 AM  

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.


I would suggest looking up some of the history between Iraq, Iran and Syria. Look to how Saddam Hussein came to power.

there's a reason he could sneak off to either country and ended up in a spider hole.
 
2013-08-30 11:35:47 AM  

Marine1: Well... at least we have the French... which honestly surprises me. Open cheese sack, remove testicles.

Hollande still up for strike
Let the UN conduct its investigation. If there's evidence that they find that Assad used the weapons... well... his regime must be punished. Until then, let's whip out just enough rhetorical dick to make sure that punishing the regime is still an option if the time comes.


This.
 
2013-08-30 11:36:20 AM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: But my question to you is whether you genuinely believe said specifics are going to provided so as to allow for such a debate.

You're arguing something unrelated to my earlier posts, to which you were responding.


From your earlier posts:

LasersHurt:  All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying

LasersHurt: ...a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

LasersHurt:You can't even honestly judge his strikes, because we don't know if there will be some, what they'll be, etc.

LasersHurt: There is not enough information about the future for the level of reaction some posters have - that's the long and short of it.


Now perhaps I'm misreading it, but the point you seem to be pushing here is that there isn't any specific information on what action will, or won't, be taken and that in the absence of that information, people should calm down and not get hung up on hypotheticals. Fair assessment?

What I've been trying to ascertain from you is whether you think Obama will be providing such specific information on what action he plans to take (assuming he decides to take it) and when you think that might occur.

You see, the administration has been careful to note that Obama hasn't made his final decision yet. Now, that might well be an honest statement that he hasn't made his final decision yet (arguments over whether it should really be his decision to make are a separate matter). Alternatively however, it could be a stalling tactic because he has made his decision, but doesn't want to announce it until after the action has been taken because giving opponents the opportunity to voice their concerns about actual specifics rather than more easily dismissed hypotheticals could get politically awkward.
 
2013-08-30 11:36:22 AM  
vygramul:

Was his codename "Curveball"?

No, Hardhat.
 
2013-08-30 11:36:41 AM  

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.


s2s2s2s2: even more uninformed than we thought.TM
 
2013-08-30 11:37:50 AM  

what_now: What moral obligation to we have to stop the systematic rape and murder in West Africa? What moral obligation do we have to stop people from enslaving children and turning them into soldiers? What moral obligation to we have to stop the genocide and starvation?

Oh right. Israel doesn't care about West Africa, so fark em.


You need the combo.  Humanitarian, in national interests and feasible.
 
2013-08-30 11:40:04 AM  

The Numbers: Now perhaps I'm misreading it, but the point you seem to be pushing here is that there isn't any specific information on what action will, or won't, be taken and that in the absence of that information, people should calm down and not get hung up on hypotheticals. Fair assessment?

What I've been trying to ascertain from you is whether you think Obama will be providing such specific information on what action he plans to take (assuming he decides to take it) and when you think that might occur.


The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.

Again, the difference is "Arguing against courses of action" vs "arguing against Obama." You can say "I don't support invading Syria," but not "I can't believe Obama is invading Syria."
 
2013-08-30 11:40:51 AM  
I do feel that we either need to get Congressional approval for any military action, or go in as part of a UN coalition.

Sadly I suspect that the former would only happen if they attached a rider to defund Obamacare.
 
2013-08-30 11:41:14 AM  

vygramul: Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.


Bingo. Pretty surprised  Weaver95 of all people isn't behind at least taking action to remove chemical weapons from the equation (agreed all around that we can't "fix" this situation ourselves, though I'd say we can try to limit some of the damage).
 
2013-08-30 11:42:46 AM  

Wyalt Derp: I do feel that we either need to get Congressional approval for any military action, or go in as part of a UN coalition.

Sadly I suspect that the former would only happen if they attached a rider to defund Obamacare.


I imagine the line would be that we've already got Congressional approval from the 9/11 AUMF, due to the involvement of Al Qaeda on the side of the rebels...
 
2013-08-30 11:44:11 AM  

somedude210: CheatCommando: Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.

command decision, no troops on the ground.

but no no, call me a chickenhawk. Heaven forbid we actually try and give a damn about people in this world besides ourselves.


When did we ever give a damn about anyone but us? far as i remember, it was about protecting our interests overseas, not that we gave a flying fark about anyone there. spare us your preaching of false moralistic bullshiat.
 
2013-08-30 11:50:30 AM  
This isn't going to work.
 
2013-08-30 11:50:30 AM  

ikanreed: s2s2s2: ikanreed: And jesus christ s2s2s2, we knew way-the-hell back in the early 2000s that Syria was making their own chemical weapons.  This is such a stupid line of reasoning, you should feel stupid for presenting it.

If you say so, random person on the Internet.

Or, you could do basic research on the subject.  Google news archives.  Wikipedia article about Syria and chemical weapons.  You know a basic self priming on the history of something before forming an opinion about it.


I think you're giving him too much credit. We're just proud of him forming mostly complete sentences now.
 
2013-08-30 11:50:40 AM  

LasersHurt: The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.


But you do believe that, if Obama decides to take action, specific information on what form that action would take will be released before it happens? And sufficiently in advance to allow for any opposition to that action to be appropriately expressed?
 
2013-08-30 11:54:56 AM  
Now it won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old smart enough to understand:
Son Obama, you don't have to fight to be a man.
 
2013-08-30 11:57:54 AM  

somedude210: Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.

I think those that aren't absolutely against bombing Syrian sites are going more "what the hell? this is *actually* a violation of international law and if we don't do something this will set up a terrible precedent for when other countries decide to use chemical weapons" I mean, hell, Obama was completely against doing anything in Syria until the chemical weapons attacks. Even the damn Congress was badgering him to get involved in Syria and he said no. Now we have a clear violation of international law and common humanity and everyone is suddenly silent?

You think we're damned if we get involved, what happens 10 years from now when we get attacked by pissed off Syrian survivors who begged for some help to stop the usage of chemical attacks and we did nothing?

Do they have to use nukes before we care? Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care? The US is the one in the position to prevent this because we're the only ones left. We wanted to be the last remaining superpower in the world so it's about time we start taking up the responsibility of the title


What happens in *2 MONTHS* when the international community turns a blind eye and Syria gasses half a city to extricate dug in rebels and kills 10,000 civilians?
 
2013-08-30 11:59:09 AM  
Treaties and Conventions aside, do we really have any sort of obligation (moral or otherwise) to intervene in an internal dispute?

There have been civil wars of all sorts on a number of continents all through the past century, and we got involved in a major way in two. Neither of those turned out too well for us. So what point is there in getting involved in this one? Yes, I know the same could be said for Libya, and I wasn't too keen on NATO getting involved.

So, why should we get involved? Should we just kick back and do nothing? Should we only do something if the conflict starts to cross into another country (e.g. Jordan or Israel) and they ask us to do something?
 
2013-08-30 12:00:12 PM  

vygramul: So now Obama is being too much of a leader?



Leaders persuade, motivate and inspire others to follow.

They also refrain from blaming subordinates when they (a) refuse to follow or (b) follow but the results don't turn out quite right.

A guy who insists on making everyone do what they don't want to do, and then whining about it, is just an asshole.
 
2013-08-30 12:02:14 PM  

The Numbers: LasersHurt: The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.

But you do believe that, if Obama decides to take action, specific information on what form that action would take will be released before it happens? And sufficiently in advance to allow for any opposition to that action to be appropriately expressed?


What point is it that you are trying to make here? I feel like you think you're cleverly working around to breaking an argument that nobody's actually making.
 
2013-08-30 12:12:41 PM  

LargeCanine: This isn't going to work.


Thank you for your very well-reasoned and explained post showcasing the entirety of your argument Mr. totally not an alt for  Canis.Noir etc.
 
2013-08-30 12:13:14 PM  

mrshowrules: When Obama drew his red lines, were there any Republicans complaining about the possible military action it reflected?

If you didn't complain that the red line was too harsh, you can't complain about the military action Obama is probably going to end up taking.  Unless you position is that Syrian government didn't in fact cross the red line.


There are two camps in the Republican party.  There's the "bomb everything" camp, headed by John McCain.  Then there's the "libertarian-lite" camp, headed by the Paul family.  The first group has been consistantly in favor of military action and the second group has been consistantly against it.  While this split makes it seems like Republicans are complaining about whatever Obama is doing (like they do on domestic issues), in this case it's just different Republicans complaining at different times.
 
2013-08-30 12:14:42 PM  

ikanreed: netweavr: give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.

durr: "Police and private self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.  "


That doesn't mean Tear Gas is not a Chemical Weapons. It just means it's not illegal to use against your own people.

give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.

From Article 2 of this treaty:


9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.


That doesn't mean Tear Gas is not a Chemical Weapons. It just means it's not illegal to use against your own people.
 
2013-08-30 12:16:56 PM  
I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.
 
2013-08-30 12:20:24 PM  
Been discussing this with a Chinese associate of mine I do business with (in China) and they told me that the Chinese people don't even believe there are chemical weapons being used
 
2013-08-30 12:21:01 PM  

StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.


This
 
2013-08-30 12:29:46 PM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: LasersHurt: The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.

But you do believe that, if Obama decides to take action, specific information on what form that action would take will be released before it happens? And sufficiently in advance to allow for any opposition to that action to be appropriately expressed?

What point is it that you are trying to make here? I feel like you think you're cleverly working around to breaking an argument that nobody's actually making.


Well right now I'm mostly being amused by your evasiveness. I mean, you really do not want to state your expectations of the Obama administration on this, I'm guessing because you're worried there's a realistic probability they'd fall short.

As to the actual point of my posts, as I've outlined above: while you might be justified in stating there isn't specific information currently available on what actions might be taken, it should also be acknowledged that it is far from certain that such information will be provided in such a manner as to allow for proper debate and dissent.
 
2013-08-30 12:32:09 PM  

Publikwerks: StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.

This



Then you should get off your ass, put down the doughnuts, pick up a gun, and go stop it.

Or are you all talk?
 
2013-08-30 12:32:46 PM  

The Numbers: Well right now I'm mostly being amused by your evasiveness. I mean, you really do not want to state your expectations of the Obama administration on this, I'm guessing because you're worried there's a realistic probability they'd fall short.


I'm evading you because you latched on to something I said and have ignored its meaning, instead asking me to answer some question you're really invested in. I'm trying to find out why.

The Numbers: As to the actual point of my posts, as I've outlined above: while you might be justified in stating there isn't specific information currently available on what actions might be taken, it should also be acknowledged that it is far from certain that such information will be provided in such a manner as to allow for proper debate and dissent.


Which DOES NOT AFFECT what I had posted, at all.
 
2013-08-30 12:32:47 PM  
 In all fairness some of the people against it are only against it because Obama is the one doing it. As soon as a republican gets in office they'll be spewing the same jive they did under Bush.
 
2013-08-30 12:36:23 PM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


Stop being the Weenerser on your submissions. Makes you look desperate.
 
2013-08-30 12:37:26 PM  

Geotpf: mrshowrules: When Obama drew his red lines, were there any Republicans complaining about the possible military action it reflected?

If you didn't complain that the red line was too harsh, you can't complain about the military action Obama is probably going to end up taking.  Unless you position is that Syrian government didn't in fact cross the red line.

There are two camps in the Republican party.  There's the "bomb everything" camp, headed by John McCain.  Then there's the "libertarian-lite" camp, headed by the Paul family.  The first group has been consistantly in favor of military action and the second group has been consistantly against it.  While this split makes it seems like Republicans are complaining about whatever Obama is doing (like they do on domestic issues), in this case it's just different Republicans complaining at different times.


Good point but did the fake Libertarian camp admonish Obama's threat/red line at the time for being to harsh?
 
2013-08-30 12:39:13 PM  

Phinn: Publikwerks: StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.

This

Then you should get off your ass, put down the doughnuts, pick up a gun, and go stop it.

Or are you all talk?


Funny how many people who had a completely different attitude starting March 20, 2003 now have no compunctions making statements like this. Maybe it represents personal growth, maybe it is something else. Of course, there's no way for me to tell.

I know you weren't posting on Fark.com in 2003, so I guess this isn't a direct dig against you. I will say, though, that many of the people decrying taking action against Syria have been in threads complaining that Iran hasn't been bombed yet.
 
2013-08-30 12:42:11 PM  

HypnozombieX: In all fairness some of the people against it are only against it because Obama is the one doing it. As soon as a republican gets in office they'll be spewing the same jive they did under Bush.


We get it, you think everyone who disagrees with Obama getting us into another war is a racist.
 
2013-08-30 12:42:48 PM  

Phinn: Publikwerks: StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.

This

Then you should get off your ass, put down the doughnuts, pick up a gun, and go stop it.

Or are you all talk?


That doesn't make you sound defensive or hypocritical at all. Not one bit.
 
2013-08-30 12:44:13 PM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....


You know that's factually incorrect.¨

I wouldn't be surprised if France let the way on this infact, just as they did in Libya.

That would make Obama look like a clown though.
 
2013-08-30 12:48:15 PM  

somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


2008?
 
2013-08-30 12:49:53 PM  

spawn73: I wouldn't be surprised if France let the way on this infact, just as they did in Libya.

That would make Obama look like a clown though.


if France led the way? I think that would probably be the best outcome for Obama is to have the US run logistical support again but France take the brunt of the bombing runs, we'll supply them
 
2013-08-30 12:52:48 PM  

somedude210: Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care?


How  many collateral damage people should we kill to show our disdain for killing the innocent?
 
2013-08-30 12:54:50 PM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: Well right now I'm mostly being amused by your evasiveness. I mean, you really do not want to state your expectations of the Obama administration on this, I'm guessing because you're worried there's a realistic probability they'd fall short.

I'm evading you because you latched on to something I said and have ignored its meaning, instead asking me to answer some question you're really invested in. I'm trying to find out why.


Your earlier posts seemed to chastise people for reacting to their own hypothetical scenarios in the absence of specifics from the administration. Now, to my mind a logical inference from that position is that you think there will come a time when people are provided with those specifics, at which juncture informed debate on the merits of such actions can take place. I mean, it would seem rather disingenuous to criticise people for reacting on the basis of little information if that was all the information you thought they were ever going to get.

What's been really curious though, and I suppose it's why I've 'latched onto' the point as you put it, is the way you've twisted and turned to avoid answering any question that might confirm whether my inference wass correct. I mean, I don't think it's really that tricky a question:

Do you think that the Obama administration will, if they decide to take military action in Syria, release specific details of such actions in a manner that allows the relative merits to be debated and dissenting voices considered?
 
2013-08-30 12:55:31 PM  

vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.


You want to send a message?  Pick up the phone.  Bombing is to kill people.
 
2013-08-30 12:56:35 PM  
Mean while in america.. gas prices on the rise just in time for labor day weekend holiday.
 
2013-08-30 12:58:04 PM  

Nabb1: The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

Coalition of the Willing 2, WMD Boogaloo.


"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again. "
 
2013-08-30 01:01:03 PM  

Sliding Carp: somedude210: Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care?

How  many collateral damage people should we kill to show our disdain for killing the innocent?


Ask the Syrian people targeted by Assad's regime.  I think you would surprised home much death they would tolerate to fark up Assad's military just a little.
 
2013-08-30 01:02:12 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Since we can't declare war on terror again, what will it be this time?  Angst?


Unacceptability
 
2013-08-30 01:08:43 PM  

The Numbers: Your earlier posts seemed to chastise people for reacting to their own hypothetical scenarios in the absence of specifics from the administration.


My posts chastised people for reacting to their own hypotheticals and blaming Obama as if he were doing them. I have explained this several times.

The Numbers: Now, to my mind a logical inference from that position is that you think there will come a time when people are provided with those specifics, at which juncture informed debate on the merits of such actions can take place.


This time will be when he says what he wants to do, or does it, depending on how he approaches it.

The Numbers: What's been really curious though, and I suppose it's why I've 'latched onto' the point as you put it, is the way you've twisted and turned to avoid answering any question that might confirm whether my inference wass correct.


Your "inference" was incorrect, which is why I have not answered your questions - they hang on the validity of that inference.
 
2013-08-30 01:12:52 PM  
Barry, Barry, Barry.

You've got a wife who goes from semi-hot to hot. She doesn't even sound all that biatchy (at least not in public). Just go bang her for a while, and you'll stop feeling this silly need to bomb various countries.
 
2013-08-30 01:13:14 PM  

thurstonxhowell: vestona22: My question has nothing to do with Bush.

Your original question featured you stumbling all over yourself to use the idiotic term "libtards" in order to accuse people of hypocrisy. Don't bullshiat me. We're on the internet and I can still see what you said.

vestona22: International law doesn't care what Congress has to say. The UN has not approved any attack. So, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?

Y'know what, fine, since you keep demanding a simple answer to a simple question about a complex situation, no matter how stupid that idea is. I'll give you one.

International law doesn't say that waging war without UN approval is a war crime. It's a violation of the UN charter and may be considered illegal, but it is not a war crime. It wasn't when Bush did it and it wouldn't be if Obama did it. Which doesn't make it right or legal.


My comments about libtard hypocrisy were contextual. The question about the legality of unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations stands on its own. And your comment about "It wasn't when Bush did it" demonstrations your ignorance, as he had a UN resolution authorizing his actions. Obama does not. In fact the UN has been quite clear that they do not support unilateral military action against Syria.

And, yes, international law does say unprovoked attacks against sovereign nations is a war crime. In fact that was one of the charges against the surviving Nazis at Nuremberg. It was called "conspiracy to commit aggression".

So not only are you wrong, but the question still stands. "Will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?"
 
2013-08-30 01:15:23 PM  
Good going GOP.  By chasing the boondoggle in Iraq you have hamstrung the US's ability to intervene when it probably should.  Is there anything you idiots can't totally fark up?
 
2013-08-30 01:15:26 PM  

skozlaw: There is a fundamental difference in capability between stopping the use of chemical weapons and stopping warring tribes from going on a rape and pillage campaign through remote villages. One can be effectively accomplished from offshore with missiles, the other requires a massive detachment to actually meet the enemy head-on in the battlefield.


So "morality" is determined in part by the convenience of adhering to it?
 
2013-08-30 01:16:43 PM  
F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.
 
2013-08-30 01:18:28 PM  
Only Obama could unite right wing derpers with left wing derpers
 
2013-08-30 01:19:44 PM  

vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.


Are you okay with N. Korea having Nukes? Cause we sent them a message a few months ago when they did their tests.
 
2013-08-30 01:21:33 PM  

iaazathot: Good going GOP.  By chasing the boondoggle in Iraq you have hamstrung the US's ability to intervene when it probably should.  Is there anything you idiots can't totally fark up?


We shouldn't intervene... yet. It pains me to say this but the Chinese and Russians aren't wrong in believing that rebels could have used the gas. Various Islamic terrorist groups are fighting in the area to depose the Assad regime so that a more fundamentalist Islamic government can be set up in Syria when the bastard finally falls. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they would plan to use such weapons if they were available. I don't think it's as likely as Assad using them (not by a long shot), but until we (and others) can prove that Assad did it, we'd be really pressing our luck with Russia and Iran by striking now.

The administration and our ally (France) need to wait until the UN is done with its work. After that, the Russians and Chinese will have a PR crisis if they rebuke our request to punish Assad for his weapons use. We're playing the rhetoric wayyyyy too loud right now for what we have to work with.
 
2013-08-30 01:22:05 PM  

Surool: F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.


tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-30 01:23:48 PM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


The bombings will continue until morale improves!
 
2013-08-30 01:24:05 PM  

Crewmannumber6: Time for some tough love. Ready? Here goes:
[i714.photobucket.com image 760x535]
You guys suck at nation building.


Pshaw.  What's to build?  Its got borders already.  And nice population.  Throw up some wallpaper, kick in a couple of written down rules, this place will be good as new in no time.
 
2013-08-30 01:26:32 PM  

somedude210: spawn73: I wouldn't be surprised if France let the way on this infact, just as they did in Libya.

That would make Obama look like a clown though.

if France led the way? I think that would probably be the best outcome for Obama is to have the US run logistical support again but France take the brunt of the bombing runs, we'll supply them


France took apart Cote D'Ivore and Mali all on their own.

I didn't see anti-war American libs attack the French over those actions either.
 
2013-08-30 01:28:09 PM  

somedude210: vygramul: This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.

didn't you get the memo? This is Iraq war x10. Troops everywhere, invasions and bombings, we're going to be there for 1000 years because fark it, people are dying.


Chuck Norris was right!
 
2013-08-30 01:28:12 PM  

dr_blasto: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.

I would suggest looking up some of the history between Iraq, Iran and Syria. Look to how Saddam Hussein came to power.

there's a reason he could sneak off to either country and ended up in a spider hole.


He was hired by Eisenhower to do a hit. He failed and was used by succeeding administrations, which strengthened his position in the regi.....
 
2013-08-30 01:28:15 PM  

skozlaw: Seth'n'Spectrum: In fact, it might be a battle that has already been lost.

Because Americans are petty, ignorant and fickle.

Basically, we seem to be in a situation where a huge portion of America mindlessly acceded to the invasion of Iraq and didn't hold Bush accountable for his abandonment of Afghanistan and the deterioration we saw there for our troops that were left behind, so now they're going to take their frustration and fatigue over their own terrible decision-making out on Syria by.... mindlessly rejecting the possibility of any sort of intervention.

I can't respect the opinion that says we shouldn't even try to protect innocents in the conflict from something as heinous as chemical attacks, but at least I can understand it. But the knee-jerk opposition doesn't even seem to rise to THAT level becasue if it did at least the opponents should be smart enough to see that there is an interest in both dissuading others who might try to use these weapons on populations or our own troops in the future AND an opportunity to try and weaken the ability of an unstable country and its dictator to disseminate (willfully or otherwise) weapons that could be eventually used against us by terror groups.

What's so frustrating is that Americans refuse to think about anything. They just knee-jerk went along with the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, got burned, so now they're just going to swing completely in the opposite direction. And then we'll sit around five years later wondering how some crazy al quaeda agent who had been fighting in Syria to set off a sarin bomb in the middle of the Super Bowl or something and why nothing was done to prevent it.

I mean, there's plenty of reasons not to get involved in any great detail, a few not to do anything, but people are just basically saying "No Syria because I farked up with Iraq" and that's just stupid.


farking this! We can't just ignore this, the violence could spread and further destabilize the region. If they're using these weapons against their own people, what's to stop them from using them against other nations? How bad does it have to get before someone steps in and helps these people? Or are we ok with it because its half the world away?

This isn't farking Iraq, and I know it's not Libya either, but I just don't think sitting by and doing nothing and hoping for the best is the right thing to do.

/before I get a lot of "We'll, there's the recruiters office, go sign up!", I've actually been considering enlisting in the Navy as a medic since before this shiat started hitting the fan.
//maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal, but whatever, these people need help and right now we're the only ones in a position to do anything about it.
 
2013-08-30 01:28:38 PM  
Let's talk logistics:

Anyone have any idea of what exactly we would throw at Syria?

I imagine we'll launch some cruise missles, but at what targets?  Munition dumps or factories?

Would we bother sending in planes to drop bombs?  What would they be targeting themselves?

A ground invasion is right out.

Do we even know where there may be other chemical weapons stored?  It would make sense that if we were going to launch an attack for the purposes of stopping chemical weapons attacks we shouldn't just randomly blow stuff up.

My guess is this is all pomp and circumstance.  Obama will sit there and wag his junk and let Syria know that even without international support, he still has the ability to bring a world of pain.  Maybe it might even bring someone to the table to have some serious talks, who knows.  This is brinkmanship at it's best, and I think Obama is doing the right thing, so far.  It can definitely go off the rails pretty damn easily.

/Russia has to get their two cents in for EVERY scuffle, they're the Rob Schneider of the Adam Sandler movie that is the world.  The best thing to do is just let them have their screen time and move on.
 
2013-08-30 01:28:42 PM  
My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.
 
2013-08-30 01:29:10 PM  

Marine1: iaazathot: Good going GOP.  By chasing the boondoggle in Iraq you have hamstrung the US's ability to intervene when it probably should.  Is there anything you idiots can't totally fark up?

We shouldn't intervene... yet. It pains me to say this but the Chinese and Russians aren't wrong in believing that rebels could have used the gas. Various Islamic terrorist groups are fighting in the area to depose the Assad regime so that a more fundamentalist Islamic government can be set up in Syria when the bastard finally falls. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they would plan to use such weapons if they were available. I don't think it's as likely as Assad using them (not by a long shot), but until we (and others) can prove that Assad did it, we'd be really pressing our luck with Russia and Iran by striking now.

The administration and our ally (France) need to wait until the UN is done with its work. After that, the Russians and Chinese will have a PR crisis if they rebuke our request to punish Assad for his weapons use. We're playing the rhetoric wayyyyy too loud right now for what we have to work with.


I don't disagree with that assessment, but you have to admit the rest of the world is more than gun shy about following us in should we act.  The vote in the UK had nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with getting burned on Iraq.
 
2013-08-30 01:30:07 PM  

ikanreed: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.

s2s2s2s2: even more uninformed than we thought.TM


You consider not reading WND evidence of being uninformed? Interesting.
 
2013-08-30 01:31:29 PM  

s2s2s2: ikanreed: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.

s2s2s2s2: even more uninformed than we thought.TM

You consider not reading WND evidence of being uninformed? Interesting.


It was a joke at your expense, caused primarily by how exhausting it is dealing with you.
 
2013-08-30 01:33:10 PM  

somedude210: CheatCommando: Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.

command decision, no troops on the ground.

but no no, call me a chickenhawk. Heaven forbid we actually try and give a damn about people in this world besides ourselves.


That's funny, the same people who pushed for us to go into Iraq as long as they didnt have to do any of the actual fighting are turning around and calling people like us chickenhawks for wanting to take action against a regime who actually has chemical weapons and is willing to use them on their own people.

Cue the Farnsworth I don't want to live on this planet any more.jpg

/Hey NASA, can I join that team to Mars?
 
2013-08-30 01:35:14 PM  

the biggest redneck here: My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.


www.hireanillustrator.com
 
2013-08-30 01:36:24 PM  

mrshowrules: Surool: F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]


We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?
 
2013-08-30 01:36:41 PM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: Now, to my mind a logical inference from that position is that you think there will come a time when people are provided with those specifics, at which juncture informed debate on the merits of such actions can take place.

This time will be when he says what he wants to do, or does it, depending on how he approaches it.

The Numbers: What's been really curious though, and I suppose it's why I've 'latched onto' the point as you put it, is the way you've twisted and turned to avoid answering any question that might confirm whether my inference wass correct.

Your "inference" was incorrect, which is why I have not answered your questions - they hang on the validity of that inference.


Ok, now you're all over the map. I ask you this question:

'Do you think that the Obama administration will, if they decide to take military action in Syria, release specific details of such actions in a manner that allows the relative merits to be debated and dissenting voices considered?'

and you're refusing to answer it on the grounds that you think it is incorrect to infer from your criticism of people not waiting for specifics from Obama that you think specifics will be forthcoming?

Again, I'd have to say I think it's looking more and more like you're refusing to give even a simple yes / no answer because you're worried if you make a definite statement about your expectations for the Obama administration it opens up the potential for embarrassment should they come up short. What if I were to promise not to mention your answer in future threads?
 
2013-08-30 01:40:26 PM  

Shadow Blasko: There is your red line. Right there.

*I* would be more than willing to drag my fat ass over there if they asked.

You can't just DO that. Those are kids .. not combatants



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/darfur-in-2013-soun ds -awfully-familiar.html

What about this red line, that we've been ignoring for a decade?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-20/opinions/35230635_1_ge no cide-holodomor-famine

Where's the red line here?

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

Any red lines crossed there?

http://www.voanews.com/content/somalia-rape-30aug13/1740074.html

Napalm is certainly bad, but how do you feel about government agents just runnin' around raping and killing whoever they feel like? Is that a red line?

 What justifies action against Syria while ignoring atrocities elsewhere? The world is a terrible place. We don't have the blood and treasure necessary to fix *all* the problems. Why is Syria so high on the priority list that we seem to be willing to act unilaterally if nobody else will join us? Is it particularly far-fetched to suggest that maybe the driving motivation isn't that we just care so much about the lives of civilians?
 
2013-08-30 01:43:38 PM  

vestona22: And, yes, international law does say unprovoked attacks against sovereign nations is a war crime. In fact that was one of the charges against the surviving Nazis at Nuremberg. It was called "conspiracy to commit aggression".

So not only are you wrong, but the question still stands. "Will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?"


Funny you should bring up Nuremberg. You should probably look up the Nuremberg Principles like I did before I wrote the post you just replied to. Waging a war of aggression is classed as a "crime against peace". A "crime against peace" is related to, but separate from, a "war crime".

I'll say again, military action in Syria may be illegal, but it is not a war crime all by itself. Same deal as military action in Iraq.

As for your crap about Iraq and UN authorization, Kofi Annan disagrees - "From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." Illegal. Not a war crime. There's a difference.
 
2013-08-30 01:44:06 PM  

Surool: mrshowrules: Surool: F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]

We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?


Listen to Spidey up thread.
 
2013-08-30 01:46:24 PM  
I think the US and France should go ahead and strike Syria for the chemical attacks.  What  somedude210 said, we have to make countries understand that there will be consequences to the use of prohibited weapons and violations of international law, such as this situation.   I hate getting our country involved in more conflicts (2 for the last 13 years was more than enough) but a limited strike to punish Assad is the only thing we can do.  He knows he's wrong and he's basically getting the Chinese and Russians to sign off on his bad acts.

And even though we let a few atrocities go by, doesn't necessarily mean we should throw our hands up and let them all go.  That would be criminal.
 
2013-08-30 01:48:50 PM  

StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.


Only a full scale invasion and occupation of Syria so that the weapons in question can be located, seized and destroyed safely will stop it. You just can't drop bombs on chemical weapons depots to destroy them. Is an invasion what you really want?
 
2013-08-30 01:50:24 PM  

somedude210: good news dictators around the world, you're free to use whatever means you want to use to keep your populace oppressed, no one's gonna give a flying fark about it so you won't have to worry about retaliation.


Dictators around the world have already figured this out. It's not news. They all know that as long as they don't step on our toes they can rape and pillage to their hearts' content. Which toe is Syria stepping on? It's not the "We hate seeing civilians die in horrible ways" toe, because we're letting that carry on uninterrupted in several places around the world. If we should suddenly decide that as the only superpower, we have a real responsibility to play world police, we should not model ourselves after a corrupt, self-interested small town PD.
 
2013-08-30 01:52:54 PM  
 
2013-08-30 01:59:28 PM  
The evil genius empty suit makes America look weak by showing aggression.
 
2013-08-30 02:06:20 PM  

mrshowrules: the biggest redneck here: My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.

[www.hireanillustrator.com image 600x776]


SEALs can swim though.
 
2013-08-30 02:06:50 PM  

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: God help us if this is true


He's no Colin Powell.
 
2013-08-30 02:08:55 PM  

vygramul: So now Obama is being too much of a leader?


You're not really leading anyone if NO ONE is behind you.
 
2013-08-30 02:16:03 PM  
Wouldn't a nerve gas manufacturing facility have to be manually infiltrated and over-taken?    Seems like just dropping a bomb on a nerve gas facility kinda defeats the purpose of trying to contain it.
 
2013-08-30 02:16:13 PM  
at this point obama is functionally indistinguishable from a hard core neocon.

because he is such an incredible politician, a reasonable person even has to wonder whether his original objection to the second iraq war was actually heartfelt instead of simply a political calculation designed to immediately separate himself from 80% of the democratic establishment in the eyes of the liberal wing of the democratic party.
 
2013-08-30 02:24:48 PM  
I have a question for those saying "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING"

When do you plan on contacting a recruiter at your local military branch and beginning the process of enrollment? And I don't care if your grandfather stormed a beach or if you sat in 2 years of Puerto Rico surveillance when you were 24...


I want to know when you personally plan to go and enlist. And if you have children of age, do you plan on letting them enlist on their own or will you be bringing them along?


Just curious.


memedepot.com
 
2013-08-30 02:25:41 PM  

mrshowrules: the biggest redneck here: My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.


Right. Big secret there.
 
2013-08-30 02:28:50 PM  

Mi-5: I think the US and France should go ahead and strike Syria for the chemical attacks.  What  somedude210 said, we have to make countries understand that there will be consequences to the use of prohibited weapons and violations of international law, such as this situation.   I hate getting our country involved in more conflicts (2 for the last 13 years was more than enough) but a limited strike to punish Assad is the only thing we can do.  He knows he's wrong and he's basically getting the Chinese and Russians to sign off on his bad acts.

And even though we let a few atrocities go by, doesn't necessarily mean we should throw our hands up and let them all go.  That would be criminal.


we violate international law all the time. all the time.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/undr-m16.html
is what is good for the geese good for the gander?

this attack itself appears to be a violation of international law:

the use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):
    All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[1]
Although some commentators interpret Article 2(4) as banning only the use of force directed at the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, the more widely held opinion is that these are merely intensifiers, and that the article constitutes a general prohibition, subject only to the exceptions stated in the Charter (self-defence and Chapter VII action by the Security Council)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states


/if this is doing justice, then it brings to mind "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger"
 
2013-08-30 02:29:37 PM  

vygramul: So now Obama is being too much of a leader?



I don't think we have to worry about that.
 
2013-08-30 02:30:05 PM  
There is undoubtedly a large body of psychological studies done by the Kremlin as to the feasibility of exploiting disaffected alternate sexual lifestyle adherents. There was a time, way back when, when gays and other alt folks could not get a clearance if their proclivities were known or admitted. I think it's very likely that highly idealistic nonconforming individuals can have their egos played upon by presenting them with something like Wikileaks, which gives them the opportunity to seize their version of the higher moral ground. Certain personality types are absolutely attracted to sticking it to The Man, whomever that man might be, gay or not. Many of these folks consider themselves smarter than the status quo and they move in their own moral universe. See also: Assange, Snowden, Manning, Greenwald, et al. All of these men are sexually libertine, highly intelligent, disaffected.

I think these idiots all got played by the Russians.
Putin's fark you to Obama.
 
2013-08-30 02:30:18 PM  

relcec: at this point obama is functionally indistinguishable from a hard core neocon.

because he is such an incredible politician, a reasonable person even has to wonder whether his original objection to the second iraq war was actually heartfelt instead of simply a political calculation designed to immediately separate himself from 80% of the democratic establishment in the eyes of the liberal wing of the democratic party.


Welcome to reality.

I can't promise that you'll like your newfound awareness. People who are still stuck in their media bubble will attack you and try to undermine you and resent you. You'll try to help them and most of them will hate you for it.

In all honesty, it sucks most of the time, but you can't go back, so you might as well learn to cope with it.
 
2013-08-30 02:32:31 PM  

s2s2s2: dr_blasto: s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.

I would suggest looking up some of the history between Iraq, Iran and Syria. Look to how Saddam Hussein came to power.

there's a reason he could sneak off to either country and ended up in a spider hole.

He was hired by Eisenhower to do a hit. He failed and was used by succeeding administrations, which strengthened his position in the regi.....


Ok. Troll mode. Got it.
 
2013-08-30 02:34:27 PM  
The United States of Heroes used WHITE PHOSPHORUS in Iraq.
Where's the indignation?
 
2013-08-30 02:42:10 PM  
This has been a boon for those of us who listen to talk radio.  You have guys like Rush, that within 30 seconds of themselves will say both that Obama is too much of a pansy to do anything about Syria crossing the "red line" and he makes America look weak, followed by saying Obama is an evil monster for wanting to lob a few missiles at Syria when the rest of the world doesn't want him to.

I also enjoy all the people who think launching a few missiles at Syria is the equivalent of the Iraq war and that makes Obama just as bad as Bush.
 
2013-08-30 02:46:34 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The United States of Heroes used WHITE PHOSPHORUS in Iraq.
Where's the indignation?

from wiki:

According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties
 
2013-08-30 02:46:41 PM  

logistic: I have a question for those saying "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING"



Hopefully the chickenhawk with his finger on the button has got all your answers.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com

/His opinion still seems to matter even tho he wasn't at the battle of the bulge.
 
2013-08-30 02:47:57 PM  
Kerry insisted Friday that the situation differs from Iraq, saying the intelligence community "reviewed and re-reviewed" its information "more than mindful of the Iraq experience." And he added: "We will not repeat that moment."

He cited particular evidence that shows al-Assad's regime was responsible.

"We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations," Kerry said. "And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons."

In addition, "we know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time," he said. "We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods."


Looks like we're attacking.  Put your boots on.
 
2013-08-30 02:48:00 PM  
The great uniter has united everyone against us taking action in Syria.  His incomprehensible foreign "policy" looks like he uses the magic 8-ball to make decisions.
 
2013-08-30 02:49:10 PM  
Both sides hate the USA, and the not-the-government side is allied with Al Qaeda.  There really is no winning move here, including not playing the game.
 
2013-08-30 02:51:35 PM  

flondrix: There really is no winning move here, including not playing the game.


There are no right answers in this situation.. it's pretty much lose-lose, so the question is finding the move that loses the least.

Inaction is not an option.. our credibility and capital are at stake.
 
2013-08-30 02:56:33 PM  
This whole thing with Syria is kind of showing the grim reality of global politics. It'd be really nice to save people in turmoil all over the world, but that would cost money. Refugees in the Congo are in agony because of the constant civil war there but we only happen to be paying attention to this incident due to the awareness of the Arab Spring. 100,000 people have already died in Syria but politicians just got furious now because of the tragic chemical weapon attack. Not downplaying the  tragedy but just mentioning how slow and lazy people are to react to ongoing war atrocities.

We're dealing with crap that's been rooted for decades thanks to previous political alliances and especially the Cold War. And the sad truth is, we're not efficient or competent enough to save everyone and bring order. Things get in the way. Military spending, provoking other countries despite our act of good will. Getting greedy politicial and economic interests over the country we're supposed to be saving in hopes for long-term benefits. Providing security and order to the world is nowhere cut and dry.

Where President Obama goes from here will not please everyone. He pulls out to comply with the nearly universal stance against intervention and he will be accused of being weak, of 'dithering', of being heartless to the suffering Syrian people and hypocritical to his 'red line' statement. If he does roll in, we'd be spending on military again, he'll be accused of playing 'world police' and he'd be depicted as warmongering for going in despite everyone else stepping out. He either has to choose to let things continue to get farked up in Syria or go in and hope he doesn't fark things up in the short and/or long term. I'm not going to choose for him. He will have to stick to one side, understand why he's doing so and take responsibility of the heavy consequences of either decision.
 
2013-08-30 03:01:24 PM  

mrshowrules: Surool: mrshowrules: Surool: F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]

We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?

Listen to Spidey up thread.


I just said that "spidey graphic" isn't an excuse. You are just going to abdicate the debate then? Okay.
 
2013-08-30 03:02:54 PM  

flondrix: Both sides hate the USA, and the not-the-government side is allied with Al Qaeda.  There really is no winning move here, including not playing the game.


There is a broader war of modernity versus traditionalism.  For too often the US has done the wrong thing for the right political reasons.  Perhaps the US need to do the right thing for the sake of being the right thing.

Play a longer game if you will.  Helping groups (including Al Qaeda) and standing by the Arab people against Assad might have longer term benefits.
 
2013-08-30 03:06:42 PM  
I do not think we should do anything in Syria alone. I seem to be in agreement with pretty much everybody else.

But I have to admit, if Obama was completely against action in Syria the GOP would more than likely be all for it and would be calling Obama weak and a bad leader. Doesn't really matter though, we'll find out if he backs down and then gets jumped in an all to predictable flip by the GOP.
 
2013-08-30 03:09:44 PM  

Surool: mrshowrules: Surool: mrshowrules: Surool: F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]

We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?

Listen to Spidey up thread.

I just said that "spidey graphic" isn't an excuse. You are just going to abdicate the debate then? Okay.


Is it true though?  Does the US have a responsibility to do something by virtue of being so rich and powerful?

It is a philosophical question.  I wish this was handled as a NATO matter.  Why aren't they invoking Article 4 as this is clearly a threat to Turkey?  I would prefer this.  In any case, Obama has to proceed.  Maybe he shouldn't have drawn the red line but he has.  He has the authority which he will use but it will be short of putting boots on the ground.

In retrospect, the red line should have been drawn by NATO not Obama.  That was his mistake.  To the extent it was a mistake to commit the US, it was done several months ago and now you are stuck with it.
 
2013-08-30 03:11:12 PM  

mpirooz: I do not think we should do anything in Syria alone. I seem to be in agreement with pretty much everybody else.

But I have to admit, if Obama was completely against action in Syria the GOP would more than likely be all for it and would be calling Obama weak and a bad leader. Doesn't really matter though, we'll find out if he backs down and then gets jumped in an all to predictable flip by the GOP.


He's not backing down.  No matter what Fartbongo does, the GOP will say it was the wrong thing.
 
2013-08-30 03:16:16 PM  

mpirooz: I do not think we should do anything in Syria alone.


Won't be. Any action will have the backing of at least France and Turkey.
 
2013-08-30 03:21:50 PM  

Granny_Panties: And if he doesn't bomb Syria, these same people will say Obama is weak for not sticking to his Red Line.

And if a chemical bomb that originated in Syria goes off in downtown NY, these same people will ask why didn't Obama do anything.

The same type of people that make these political cartoons are the same people that are criticizing him for acting. This isn't about Syria or chemical weapons, it's about making Obama and America look bad.

[www.wnd.com image 590x421]

[img.allvoices.com image 609x608]


Using your thinking we should attack Iran as well.
 
2013-08-30 03:23:02 PM  

mrshowrules: mpirooz: I do not think we should do anything in Syria alone. I seem to be in agreement with pretty much everybody else.

But I have to admit, if Obama was completely against action in Syria the GOP would more than likely be all for it and would be calling Obama weak and a bad leader. Doesn't really matter though, we'll find out if he backs down and then gets jumped in an all to predictable flip by the GOP.

He's not backing down.  No matter what Fartbongo does, the GOP will say it was the wrong thing.


He's the real victim in all of this mess.
 
2013-08-30 03:25:45 PM  
www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-08-30 03:34:06 PM  

Kiriyama9000: [www.washingtonpost.com image 850x664]


Edward Tufte is rolling in his grave.
 
2013-08-30 04:00:42 PM  

somedude210: /seriously guys, why the fark do you compare this to Iraq?
//if anything, compare to Libya


Because Libya was successful, more or less, and probably the right thing to do under the circumstances. Iraq was a total clusterfark and was obviously all Obama's fault. Benghazi! IRS? ... [mutters] Fillibuster.
 
2013-08-30 04:01:37 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The United States of Heroes used WHITE PHOSPHORUS in Iraq.
Where's the indignation?


There, but ignored.
 
2013-08-30 04:01:56 PM  
Look Syria is a farking shiat sandwich that only one man has the balls to eat, that's right Barack Obama champion shiat sandwich eater since 2008. Syria is is the biggest shiattiest sandwich in the world, even shiattier and bigger then the Iraq, even shiatter and bigger then the Afghanistan, even bigger and shiattier then the sequester, even bigger and shiatter then Quantitative Easing and we know there is only one man capable of eating such a sandwich.

Barack Obama he eats shiat sandwiches because we deserve it.
 
2013-08-30 04:25:42 PM  

mrshowrules: There is a broader war of modernity versus traditionalism.  For too often the US has done the wrong thing for the right political reasons.  Perhaps the US need to do the right thing for the sake of being the right thing.

Play a longer game if you will.  Helping groups (including Al Qaeda) and standing by the Arab people against Assad might have longer term benefits.


Either you have the two sides confused here, or I do:  I thought the government was somewhat secular (at least by middle eastern standards) and one of the reasons the people were so pissed was because the government wasn't sharia enough for them.  Hence the support for the rebels from Al Qaeda.  If we support the rebels, we are supporting theocracy and traditionalism.  Something that you would think Republicans would get behind, except that the theocracy they are striving for isn't a Christian one.
 
2013-08-30 04:37:48 PM  
For the most part, the middle east is something the middle east is going to have to work out for themselves. We know, we've always known (or damn well should have) that sticking our western noses in it just makes them dig in further.

For the most part. Chemical weapons, however...
 
2013-08-30 05:05:25 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: LargeCanine: This isn't going to work.

Thank you for your very well-reasoned and explained post showcasing the entirety of your argument Mr. totally not an alt for  Canis.Noir etc.


I don't have an alt. But thank you for your comment allowing me to properly categorize your alt.
 
2013-08-30 05:21:22 PM  

mpirooz: But I have to admit, if Obama was completely against action in Syria the GOP would more than likely be all for it and would be calling Obama weak and a bad leader. Doesn't really matter though, we'll find out if he backs down and then gets jumped in an all to predictable flip by the GOP.


There's nothing to flip. He drew his red line but didn't get congress on board about what to do if it was crossed. Now he wants to attack without any consensus, the rest of the world see us as belligerent, and if he backs down we still look belligerent and he looks weak, making the US look weak. It doesn't matter what party he is or what he does at this point - it's a farkup.
 
2013-08-30 05:23:23 PM  

mrshowrules: Does the US have a responsibility to do something by virtue of being so rich and powerful?


No, we do not. All we do is breed more hatred against us, and the fighting is never over.
 
2013-08-30 05:41:31 PM  

USP .45: There's nothing to flip. He drew his red line but didn't get congress on board about what to do if it was crossed. Now he wants to attack without any consensus, the rest of the world see us as belligerent, and if he backs down we still look belligerent and he looks weak, making the US look weak. It doesn't matter what party he is or what he does at this point - it's a farkup.


Here's the thing.. you can call the whole "red line" thing a mistake.. and there are valid points to that, but what were the other options at that point (in regards to deterring the use of chemical weapons)? UN resolutions were going absolutely nowhere thanks to Russia and China, none of the other major powers were speaking very loud so what better option than to bluff and hope you don't get called on it? It's not like it was a weak bluff either; it came not long after the US took very real action in Libya.

As for Congress, Syria was barely even on their minds at the time and as for the present, for all the bluster you're hearing out of a select handful, you're still not seeing many of them hopping a flight back to DC ASAP, are you?
 
2013-08-30 06:37:27 PM  
Don't do it!  We gain nothing but more enemies, and we have enough of those.  Doesn't matter who wins the USA loses in Syria.
 
2013-08-30 06:37:52 PM  
Sigh. There's no good out for Obama here, and no matter which way he goes, it's going to damage our reputation some. He's already painted into the corner.

This is one of those instances when it's very clear that we elected a rookie. Tons of raw talent, good ability, but lacking the experience and seasoning required in the big leagues. He flubbed an important play.
 
2013-08-30 06:41:32 PM  

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.



What are you - Mr. thread-first guy?  Get a life, dude.

Oh, by the way... I'm having flashbacks.
 
2013-08-30 07:30:46 PM  

vygramul: Kiriyama9000: [www.washingtonpost.com image 850x664]

Edward Tufte is rolling in his grave.


He'll be surprised to hear that.
 
2013-08-30 07:52:47 PM  

VogonPoet: vygramul: Kiriyama9000: [www.washingtonpost.com image 850x664]

Edward Tufte is rolling in his grave.

He'll be surprised to hear that.


Oh? I take that as proof that he has not seen that graphic yet.
 
2013-08-30 07:56:18 PM  

ArkPanda: Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.


We didn't care when Sadaam was gassing Kurds and Iranians in the 80s, hell we were on his side! There's nothing new here.
 
2013-08-30 08:03:03 PM  

TheJoe03: ArkPanda: Attention world: Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons. Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

We didn't care when Sadaam was gassing Kurds and Iranians in the 80s, hell we were on his side! There's nothing new here.


We only care if you use chemical weapons after we SPECIFICALLY told you not to!
 
2013-08-30 08:45:55 PM  

TheJoe03: ArkPanda: Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

We didn't care when Sadaam was gassing Kurds and Iranians in the 80s, hell we were on his side! There's nothing new here.


It's almost as if a different generation with different values is in charge now.
 
2013-08-30 09:14:42 PM  

skozlaw: Kangaroo_Ralph: Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?

We've had this discussion as well. They received them from numerous sources, including Egypt and Iraq. Nobody has ever claimed Iraq never had WMDs, they had a very large cache of them in the 80s and they used them on several occasions. This has nothing to do with Iraq in 2003 which had none.

Any more inane questions?


And they made them, which is a capability they've had (and the US has known about) since the 1980s.
 
2013-08-30 09:15:33 PM  

InmanRoshi: Wouldn't a nerve gas manufacturing facility have to be manually infiltrated and over-taken?    Seems like just dropping a bomb on a nerve gas facility kinda defeats the purpose of trying to contain it.


That's what I keep thinking. I wish an ordnance expert would come in and discuss that piece of the puzzle. A better target for a cruise missile might be something Assad really likes. Maybe a yacht or something.
 
2013-08-30 09:20:51 PM  

Tyee: Don't do it!  We gain nothing but more enemies, and we have enough of those.  Doesn't matter who wins the USA loses in Syria.


whoever loses the u.s. wins. they should smile on as whoever is doing it continues to deliver deliver decent ATGMS and watch the place burn for a few years. the only way we could fark this up is getting involved.
 
2013-08-30 09:23:06 PM  

vygramul: It's almost as if a different generation with different values is in charge now.


LOL, really? Good luck with supporting another clusterfark though.
 
2013-08-30 09:30:35 PM  

somedude210: You think we're damned if we get involved, what happens 10 years from now when we get attacked by pissed off Syrian survivors who begged for some help to stop the usage of chemical attacks and we did nothing?


yea, they are gonna focus in on the US as the sole reason they are pissed.  Sure.  Not assad or anything.  The US.  And what happens in 10 years time when the survivor of a wayward tomahawk missile comes home to roost?  you know, someone for whom the US is the actual real cause of their suffering?  As opposed to a geopolitical axe to grind that you suggest?

hey, why don't you go sign up to fight, big guy.  Or send your kids or your neices or nephews.  Go on.  You know, to keep us all safe from that eventuallity you outlined up there, cuz it makes a lot of sense and is clearly worth putting your life on the line for. right?
 
2013-08-30 10:09:27 PM  

The_Forensicator: The great uniter has united everyone against us taking action in Syria.  His incomprehensible foreign "policy" looks like he uses the magic 8-ball to make decisions.


I thought the "uniter, not a divider" stopped being President about five and a half years ago.
 
2013-08-30 10:49:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. There's no good out for Obama here, and no matter which way he goes, it's going to damage our reputation some. He's already painted into the corner.

This is one of those instances when it's very clear that we elected a rookie. Tons of raw talent, good ability, but lacking the experience and seasoning required in the big leagues. He flubbed an important play.


Yeah, I really wish we had someone with a wealth of foreign policy experience like Romney making the decisions right now.
 
2013-08-30 10:56:49 PM  

Kiriyama9000: [www.washingtonpost.com image 850x664]


There's no arrow between Assad and Syria Rebels.
 
2013-08-30 10:57:07 PM  

1derful: Obama needs to take people's attention from all the evil shiat he's been caught at home, so it's bombing time!


Clinton tactic... cya ....
 
2013-08-30 11:49:25 PM  

TheJoe03: vygramul: It's almost as if a different generation with different values is in charge now.

LOL, really? Good luck with supporting another clusterfark though.


It's almost as if this will be another Iraq.
 
2013-08-31 12:06:09 AM  
I've heard the sane, honest and concerned opinions of most important politicians across the globe. But what did the UN inspectors that left Syria find out?

Also, what red lines-blue lines? There is an all out war going on there since 2011, tens of thousands murdered, millions on the run, and the "civilized world" suddenly gets a fit about it today?
 
2013-08-31 12:09:13 AM  

vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.


Why do we have to be the world police? Why did we not respond when 100,000 have died, yet we suddenly do when they use chemical weapons?

Plus, aiding the rebels will bite us in the ass. They are as bad as Assad AND have Al Qaeda ties.

We should stay the fark out
 
2013-08-31 02:54:54 AM  

machoprogrammer: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

Why do we have to be the world police? Why did we not respond when 100,000 have died, yet we suddenly do when they use chemical weapons?

Plus, aiding the rebels will bite us in the ass. They are as bad as Assad AND have Al Qaeda ties.

We should stay the fark out


It's just amazing to me that a useless/potentially volatile limited strike that shouldn't even happen will be just as damaging to the US as the posturing and belligerent threats of useless action that we back away from. To get yourself into a position where both options are equally embarrassing failures really takes some skill.
 
2013-08-31 06:22:55 AM  

vygramul: TheJoe03: vygramul: It's almost as if a different generation with different values is in charge now.

LOL, really? Good luck with supporting another clusterfark though.

It's almost as if this will be another Iraq.


Doubtful, but it's a whole can of worms I'm not sure we should get into. More like 1980s Afghanistan and our support of "freedom fighters" that ended up being our current enemies. No one has even offered a military plan that would actually work in a nation like Syria to topple or cripple Assad and we have no idea what would happen if Assad was gone. We really need to stay out of this, it's not our fight and I fail to see how it helps the US or even the Middle East in the long term.
 
2013-08-31 11:14:59 AM  

USP .45: It's just amazing to me that a useless/potentially volatile limited strike that shouldn't even happen will be just as damaging to the US as the posturing and belligerent threats of useless action that we back away from. To get yourself into a position where both options are equally embarrassing failures really takes some skill.


Again I have to ask, back when chemical weapon use by Assad was hinted at a year ago, what would you have done different as a deterrent?
 
2013-08-31 08:31:00 PM  
   In a rational sort of way, I think Russia should join with the rest of the world to go in and remove the chemical weapons from Syria so that they can be destroyed.  However, I think the
Russians think of the chemical weapons as being safely contained as long as they are under the control of Assad and his regime, and fear that the weapons may find their way to Dagestan, or points north, and be used there, if he falls and the weapons come under the control of the somewhat motley crew now arrayed in opposition to Assad.  The problem with that approach is that the chemical weapons will still be there, if Assad maintains control by demolishing the opposition.  If the chemical weapons were removed they would no longer be a problem, and would not turn up somewhere else.
   Unfortunately, with the telegraphing of our punches in advance, as well as, the necessity of getting enough various countries on board with an intervention, selling an intervention to democratic legislative bodies and the peoples they represent, and coordinating the various militaries to be able to act in unison, the element of surprise has been lost.  Assad and his minions have had time to regroup, disperse, and take cover, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/uk-syria-crisis-barracks-idU K BRE97T0N720130830?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews , thus complicating and creating a hodgepodge of pitfalls for the intended strike against Assad's forces.
   Assad and company's crimes are numerous, and many of them are equally as bad as the poison gas attack, http://www.france24.com/en/20130830-incendiary-bomb-dropped-syria-sch o ol-children-assad .
   War, like life, can be complicated and it is difficult to discern the correct action to pursue at the correct time.  However, as Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  And, one would do well to remember Confucius, "If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand."

/...for advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill.--J. R. R. Tolkien
 
Displayed 340 of 340 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report