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.

(Washington Post)   Good news, Americans. WaPo has published a basic-level primer so you can understand what's going on in Syria. Yes, it defines what Syria is   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 78
    More: Dumbass, Americans, Fareed Zakaria, Sunni Islam, Bashar, Zakaria, Anti-Western, colonialisms, collective securities  
•       •       •

4723 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-30 09:42:08 AM  
There are people who do not know this information and this will be very helpful for them.
 
2013-08-30 09:45:13 AM  
Here's the WaPO's short answer for it (and everything else): It's the white man's fault for this.
 
2013-08-30 09:46:48 AM  

Empty H: There are people who do not know this information and this will be very helpful for them.


^^^^
 
2013-08-30 09:48:43 AM  
Ah, War: God's way of teaching Americans geography.
 
2013-08-30 09:49:08 AM  
A very good primer that hits upon all relevant points.
 
2013-08-30 09:52:37 AM  
6. Why hasn't the United States fixed this yet?

Because Team America: World Police wasn't a documentary.
 
2013-08-30 09:54:20 AM  
Can't we just stay out?  Please?  Just this once?

You may think it sounds heartless, but people in the Middle East killing each other is pretty much the status quo for the last few centuries.  I have little hope that that part of the world will EVER get it's sh*t together.

If a country has internal problems, the United States feels like it has to go super-world-police in there, guns blazing, missiles flying.

If we start something here, Russia and Iran could get involved, and then everything goes to hell.  We use billions of dollars and could lose (even more) lives by sending troops over to that part of the world.  Again.

We've got plenty of our own issues here without trying to solve everyone else's problems.  What if a country threatens or attacks us?  Sure, retaliate... fine.  But until then, we have to quit policing the rest of the world.

Maybe if we start drilling more of our own oil (or find another alternative energy source), we'll finally lose interest in the Middle East and GTFO for good.
 
2013-08-30 09:55:03 AM  
WaPo shills for intervention. What a huge cluster fark.
 
2013-08-30 09:57:25 AM  

Empty H: There are people who do not know this information and this will be very helpful for them.


This. It's a concise and easily understood summary of what's been going on. Really a pretty good article.
 
2013-08-30 09:58:40 AM  
You know, it would be nice if, for once, just once, some other country could take the lead on this one.

We got (rightly) criticized to high holy hell for our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  So now it's your turn, France, or whoever, step up to the plate and show us how it's done.
 
2013-08-30 09:59:27 AM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-08-30 09:59:49 AM  
It just amazes me that Obama watched the ungodly quagmire in Iraq, and is actually sitting around thinking: "I should try some of that same strategy in Syria."
 
2013-08-30 10:00:21 AM  
"Can't we just stay out?  Please?  Just this once? "

The article covers that:

The whole idea that there are rules to war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world's few quasi-successes is the "norm" (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad's use of them, but it's also strong enough that it's worth protecting. So it's sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn't cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons.
 
2013-08-30 10:02:35 AM  
...slaughtering civilians unapologetically, which was a big part of how things escalated as quickly as they did

images.wikia.com
 
2013-08-30 10:02:58 AM  
TFA explicitly states, "There are no viable options," but seems OK with the idea of missile strikes as retribution for the chemical attacks.

Apparently, when there are no viable options, you just pick one of the non-viable ones and go with that.
 
2013-08-30 10:03:24 AM  
I can understand the 'few cruise missiles' concept based on the idea that chemical weapons are not to be used.   Use chemical weapons, expect a few cruise missiles to blow up your palaces/bases/etc.
 
2013-08-30 10:04:29 AM  
9. Hi, there was too much text so I skipped to the bottom to find the big take-away.

Damn, these people are on to us. A tl;dr reference.
 
2013-08-30 10:04:52 AM  
 
2013-08-30 10:05:41 AM  
After skipping to number 9 and finding it concise and well-written, I went back and read the whole thing.

/Pleasantly surprised.
 
2013-08-30 10:06:22 AM  

Low Budget Dave: It just amazes me that Obama watched the ungodly quagmire in Iraq, and is actually sitting around thinking: "I should try some of that same strategy in Syria."


Really? That's what you think is happening? Shiat, the article this thread links to actually explains it pretty well. Besides nobody is talking about sending in ground troops and so far it sounds like a Libya like "no fly zone" is pretty unlikely too. Maybe MAYBE there will be a limited bombing campaign targeting Assad's chemical weapons plants.
 
2013-08-30 10:07:14 AM  

Cybernetic: TFA explicitly states, "There are no viable options," but seems OK with the idea of missile strikes as retribution for the chemical attacks.

Apparently, when there are no viable options, you just pick one of the non-viable ones and go with that.


Low Budget Dave: It just amazes me that Obama watched the ungodly quagmire in Iraq, and is actually sitting around thinking: "I should try some of that same strategy in Syria."


lockers: WaPo shills for intervention. What a huge cluster fark.


You should all go back and Read The Featured Article again, because, apparently, you forgot to read it the first time.
 
2013-08-30 10:09:03 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Low Budget Dave: It just amazes me that Obama watched the ungodly quagmire in Iraq, and is actually sitting around thinking: "I should try some of that same strategy in Syria."

Really? That's what you think is happening? Shiat, the article this thread links to actually explains it pretty well. Besides nobody is talking about sending in ground troops and so far it sounds like a Libya like "no fly zone" is pretty unlikely too. Maybe MAYBE there will be a limited bombing campaign targeting Assad's chemical weapons plants.


More likely, a strike utilizing missiles to eliminate the artillery and missile launchers in order to remove most of their ability to fire Chemical Weapons at each other.  And some punitive missile strikes on whichever side is found to have launched the first Chemical Weapon attack.
 
2013-08-30 10:10:16 AM  
It is the duty of the responsible nations to intervene in the affairs of the less responsible ones, that is what being an advanced nation is about.

We could just let the Syrians gas each other into oblivion but that is not the right thing to do. We have thousands of cruise missiles waiting for this very purpose. It would be mean spirited and cowardly not to punish the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population.
 
2013-08-30 10:10:22 AM  

Catsaregreen: Here's the WaPO's short answer for it (and everything else): It's the white man's fault for this.


Odd, that is not what I learned from the article. Although if you can name a nation (other than Canada) with peaceful artificial boundaries, let us know.
 
2013-08-30 10:12:00 AM  

Infernalist: More likely, a strike utilizing missiles to eliminate the artillery and missile launchers in order to remove most of their ability to fire Chemical Weapons at each other. And some punitive missile strikes on whichever side is found to have launched the first Chemical Weapon attack.


I would say in addition they are looking at limited strikes against command and control locations as well
 
2013-08-30 10:14:32 AM  
Seriously, why can't more articles about current events be written like this in major news outlets?  It breaks down the situation in simple language that everyone can understand.  It would help stem the tide of ignorance in this country.

I totally didn't realize the Russian hook in this situation, and now it makes it more clear to me that we shouldn't get involved AT ALL.

Eventually Syria is going to make a mistake, a big one, and Israel is going to start pummeling them.  THEN we get involved.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:15 AM  

MattyFridays: Eventually Syria is going to make a mistake, a big one, and Israel is going to start pummeling them. THEN we get involved.


Why wait, lets strike now so the Lebanese terrorists working as mercenaries can retaliate against Israel and then we can pound their military into dust
 
2013-08-30 10:16:36 AM  
The easy, simplistic answer is "b-b-b-but Iraq"! The truth is much closer to Kosovo. We need to do something or the costs will be worse. No troops, if things get that bad enough, I'll bet that Israel does that for us.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:39 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Infernalist: More likely, a strike utilizing missiles to eliminate the artillery and missile launchers in order to remove most of their ability to fire Chemical Weapons at each other. And some punitive missile strikes on whichever side is found to have launched the first Chemical Weapon attack.

I would say in addition they are looking at limited strikes against command and control locations as well


Can't push too far into their conventional control structure lest we be seen to be choosing sides, as opposed to punishing over a Chemical Weapons usage.
 
2013-08-30 10:17:39 AM  
Good article. This is a brutally tough decision. No good choice but you can't draw lines in the sand and then ignore it when those lines are crossed.

I don't envy Obama, though.
 
2013-08-30 10:17:44 AM  
With the Russians treating the Chechens so kindly, who wouldn't be surprised with a Syrian group using gas in the Moscow subway -- just as a thank you and returning the love.
 
2013-08-30 10:18:53 AM  

Cybernetic: TFA explicitly states, "There are no viable options," but seems OK with the idea of missile strikes as retribution for the chemical attacks.

Apparently, when there are no viable options, you just pick one of the non-viable ones and go with that.


These are low in stock on bookshelves in D.C., unfortunately:

i257.photobucket.com

/I might be alright with some missile strikes on Assad d-bags arty stockpiles
/no f-ing troops, except some A-teams maybe at the bitter end of Assad's reign
 
2013-08-30 10:24:11 AM  
So Assad is spraying purple stuff on the Sunni D?
 
2013-08-30 10:24:16 AM  

Empty H: There are people who do not know this information and this will be very helpful for them.


One of my best friends is travelling to a small African country in 2 days for a mission trip (despite everyone in the country she's going to already being christian) and in the last couple weeks leading up to her leaving she asked me:
"So what's going on in Egypt?"
I said it was a really complicated question and started to try to sort out what she already knew about it.
Turns out she knew where Egypt was located and that they have pyramids there.
That and she had never heard of the Arab Spring.

So yes, there are definitely some people who could use this info, sadly those people will skip right to the celebrity gossip section.

/ After researching Equitorial Guinea I started to get really worried about her safety.
 
2013-08-30 10:27:07 AM  
Between TFA and this New Yorker piece that nails my internal arguments, everyone can get a pretty good idea of what our Syria problem is. I wish there was some involved party to root for, one who didn't hate us, and some way to make the whole thing stop and go away.
 
2013-08-30 10:27:15 AM  
No viable alternatives? Obama should hack into the simulation and change the parameters.
(might even get a commendation for creative thinking)
 
2013-08-30 10:27:54 AM  
BTW, FIFA, great job in putting the World Cup in 2022.  The area might not even exist in 9 years.
 
2013-08-30 10:31:00 AM  

mortimer_ford: So Assad is spraying purple stuff on the Sunni D?


Outstanding product placement! You win the Internets Marketing Award!
 
2013-08-30 10:31:03 AM  
Reasons we want nothing to do with this mess for dummies.

1: The Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine says it will "not stand idly by" if America attacks Syria; it will retaliate along with Iran, Hezbollah and Syria.

2: Just what we need, another reason for terrorist to blow us up.

3: Syria's government wants us to attack, then they can unify the Syrian people against the American oppressors.

No thank you.
 
2013-08-30 10:33:49 AM  

bbfreak: Reasons we want nothing to do with this mess for dummies.

1: The Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine says it will "not stand idly by" if America attacks Syria; it will retaliate along with Iran, Hezbollah and Syria.

2: Just what we need, another reason for terrorist to blow us up.

3: Syria's government wants us to attack, then they can unify the Syrian people against the American oppressors.

No thank you.


1) Man up, nancy.

2) See 1.  They're already wanting to blow us up.

3) You're so wrong it hurts.
 
2013-08-30 10:34:06 AM  

Seraphym: Cybernetic: TFA explicitly states, "There are no viable options," but seems OK with the idea of missile strikes as retribution for the chemical attacks.

Apparently, when there are no viable options, you just pick one of the non-viable ones and go with that.

These are low in stock on bookshelves in D.C., unfortunately:

[i257.photobucket.com image 319x401]

/I might be alright with some missile strikes on Assad d-bags arty stockpiles
/no f-ing troops, except some A-teams maybe at the bitter end of Assad's reign


Great picture.
 
2013-08-30 10:37:54 AM  
In a letter to my congressman, state senators, and local newspapers (and because my name was attached to this, I didn't really let them know how I felt about a couple of things because in instances like this, feelings are worthless and can cause problems), I wrote at 4:30 AM EST:

I see where the people are worried about who we are supporting.

I see where the people are worried about sending a message.

I see where the people are worried about the needless loss of life.

I see where the people feel that our military intervention is the right thing to do.

I see where the people feel that our military intervention is the wrong thing to do.

However, I do not see where this ends. A missile strike on Syria WILL be answered with some sort of response, you would be stupid to think that it wouldn't. It doesn't have to be strong, not at all. The initial missile strike wouldn't be strong, but it's enough to cause a drop in a bucket that creates ripples, that overflow into the ocean it's in to create waves that could very well create a tsunami. Will it be a military response from Syria to us? Will it be a regional response and gangrape of Israel? Will it be a Russian warship opening fire on an American vessel? Will it be the opposition gaining a strong enough foothold to take the country over? Which part of the opposition will end up taking control? Will the winning faction of the opposition be worse than Al-Assad? Will the winning faction be friendly to the US? Will the winning faction be a religious theocracy hellbent on destroying their fellow countrymen under religious persecution and law?

While I understand the implications of looking "weak" to the international community as a whole, I also understand the implications of a President using his position to send our military to action, as a sole decision. This is what kings do. This is what dictators do. This is what America was founded fighting against, this is what America still declares publicly to be against. There are and have been MUCH more serious world issues we've ignored in Africa, this is fact. Undeniable, verified historical fact. It is also verifiable, undeniable fact that if this is done ESPECIALLY without the approval of congress, democracy in this country is in more jeopardy than we thought if not outright dead.

Moreover, if this is done AT ALL without VERIFIED EVIDENCE that ASSAD or THE PEOPLE IN CONTROL OF THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT explicitly ordered this, it's a crime of unjust punishment without due process. Again, another Constitutional right and stance we afford ourselves, or at least we used to until that began to be eroded by things like Civil Forfeiture, never ending detention of people who haven't been charged with a crime, people that we don't treat as though they were human.

Humanity... that where this all stems from. From feelings. We feel that we should do something about this because morally, it's the right thing to do. We feel that we should save the innocent children and women and civilians being massacred en mass because we're America, and that's what we've declared we stand for as long as I can remember. The international community treats us as an aging guard dog with dementia, however. Rightfully so. Had we not been so drunk with power for the last 5 decades, had we truly stuck to our values and laws, had we not exercised powers not explicitly granted for military operation by sidestepping our ideals to engage in "Operations" or "Invasions" or "Exercises", perhaps we would not be looked at this way. However, we as a people still, and we must, maintain our humanity, ever enduring.

So that leaves us with what to do? I see both sides of the issue, the right and the wrong, both morally and politically. I see it.

I do not see evidence of the Assad regime, his main players, ordering the use of chemical weapons. I do see headlines regarding Israels interception of calls to do so. I do not see or hear these recordings, however. I do not see or hear about them being verified by an uninterested third party. If, say the Swiss, could verify that, it would be evidence. In a court of law, though, simply saying that you hold a recording of a conversation without giving that recording to the courts and a third party to verify its authenticity would be disregarded. As of right now, this is purely hearsay. Not only does this not stand until it's questioned and verified, it lends credence to the oppositional argument of our intervention, that of fabrication of the circumstances that we see for political interests. Whether it be a "false flag" perpetrated by Israel, or simply the internal Syrian oppositional forces that used the weapons on a civilian population, it still detracts from the credibility of those already claiming to have affirmative proof of the Assad regime wrongdoing. If we analyze the Presidents words closely, that "those responsible must be held accountable", and we are to believe that, we should also have undeniable proof that Assad is responsible to attack the governmental infrastructure and military installations. If the evidence is to the contrary, that it is the oppositional forces, we should also then by that same standard be obligated to act with force upon them. If the evidence vetted by a third party points to the Mossad and Israel actually sinking so low as to do this, then the government of Israel SHOULD be acted upon with force. Simply because we thought we were right in blaming someone we perceive to be an enemy doesn't exonerate us of our mighty moral obligation to "do something about it because it's wrong".

I do not see where the calls for the bringing of "justice" to the Syrian government would end with it's response. I do not see who, exactly, we would be supporting. We're talking about propping up YET ANOTHER oppositional force that will, with 95% certainty, be hostile toward us anyways. Simply aiding the evil seeking control of the government doesn't make us less evil. It also doesn't make us more evil as our intentions would, under this pretense, be to set an example for those using chemical based weapons in waging war(save for the instance of this being done without the approval of congress...Libya anyone?). It does, however, make us appear to be stupid and belligerent. It does erode any lesson we SHOULD have learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and an even further list of lesser known acts. This is all saying: once Assad is gone, who do we end up with next? More likely than not just another dictator hostile toward sects of his own civilian population at best, at worst yet another full on theocratic idiocracy hellbent on the removal of Israel from the world map, the destruction of all Jews and the "Great Satan to the West that supports the Zionist movements."
I see where the needless loss of life, all of the tragic and horrible pictures and video we see, cause an emotional response that makes us question our own morality if we do not act. Tell me, then, where the loss of a Syrian child's life to gas or gunfire is more valuable than the loss of an American child's life sent off to a war based on hearsay? Is it simply okay because he signed up for it? Does that alone make his life less valuable? Examining the so far unjustly made case for waging war against Syrian government, I would doubt that's what he signed up for. The very few soldiers I have talked to regarding their experiences in Iraq, as most of them haven't talked to me about their experience at all, have passed the sentiment that the circumstances in Iraq are NOT what they had signed up for. Not for a war waged on literally falsified evidence. Not for the ousting of a dictator purely, undeniably, and verifiable by a simple game of connect-the-dots for privatized financial benefit of a VERY few individuals. The fine people who serve in our military should be used for our home defense, protecting our interests, and serving true justice around the world if need be IN THAT ORDER, and all should be authorized by congress. THEIR lives are also valuable, just as any life is, and should NOT be put at risk for anything BUT those things. In a circumstance like this, where there is no evidence that is verified and of value, where we show arrogant defiance on a governmental level to the international community at large by already publicly declaring "We know Assad did it" ("Iraq has WMDs!" Colin Powell shrieked as he held up a vial of anthrax in the UN... sound familiar?) and "We're ready to act with or without the UN backing us" and drawing all of these idiotic "red lines", when any red line should be more described as a prism of red in millions of different hues... in this kind of circumstance, I would say the answer is clearly "no", their lives are not worth more in this case. It's cold. it's callous. It's calculating and shrewd... but to me, for my country, for our preservation and arguably the preservation of the damned world (this is a WWIII possibility at the end.. ripples into waves in a constantly unstable region, probability notwithstanding) as a whole, it's a giant resounding booming echoing loud "HELL NO". It's simply not worth it, and until (or if at all) the waters are less murky involving the circumstances, it never will change. If anything, sending them off to die in another what-will-be war, will simply sow dissent amongst not only the international community, but amongst the ranks themselves.

We have more than enough problems to deal with that are clear.

Fukushima spews hundred of millions of gallons of radioactive tainted waters into the pacific, tainting the environment and possibly slowly poisoning us all. The fish directly off the coast are basically rendered unsafe for consumption, fish caught off the coast of California test higher for Cesium than before.

An entire political party has more or less taken a state hostage to its whims. It has redrawn voting districts and strategically enacted laws to restrict certain demographics from voting. it has repealed rights and enacted more
restrictive laws.

We have seen an expansion of federal power that is no less than disgusting and worrisome. Our government spies upon our own citizens without checks or balances, and the media tells us more stories about the man that opened that can of worms, rather than further investigating exactly what our government is up to.

Is this expansion of federal power going to stop? Not if we don't raise our voices and tell them how wrong it is, it never will. Neither will the Fukushima crisis be fully addressed, neither will the hijacking of an entire state, neither will the domestic spying and expanding federal power into a monarchical parody stop. Let's face it, too, those acts are arguably treasonous to our Constitution.

We are a nation of great power with great, but dwindling, influence. It's time we focus our energies on righting our wrongs at home and dealing with humanities messes in general, not this. What's happening in Syria is wrong, and it sucks, but it's just not our business. We have no true reason or evidence to risk the lives of our children for theirs... yet. We have no reason to risk WWIII for their civil war, at all, and that IS what we risk by jumping the gun. It's time to address the president, who I voted for twice, and his lies to us. No more illegal wars, he said. You'll be able to keep your doctors, he said. Unwarranted wiretapping goes, but now we have PRISM to worry about? It's time to address our congress with letters of disapproval and actually TAKE ACTION, if in JUST SOME SMALL WAY, against this and the other atrocities both parties (and let's not even discuss the illusory premise of the two-party system..) commit, endorse, substantiate, and create. It's time to raise our fists and shake them at, and begin worrying about, the right people for once in my lifetime. Ignore the middle east and its never ending cycle of war and hate this time.

An act of war is attacking a sovereign nation. Period. Done. Undeniable. I am AGAINST war with Syria in this instance. The AMERICAN PUBLIC is AGAINST war with Syria in this instance, as per published polls. If our president doesn't listen to our congress and engages, he should stand trial for it. If our congress engages, and doesn't listen to the American public, THEY should stand trial. If there aren't any trials, and if they're called for by the public, eventually... and it won't be today, it won't be tomorrow... those seeds of dissent WILL sprout amongst the citizenry, and they're already starting to as is.. right or wrong as it was, there will be more Edward Snowdens selling out our security. The people who control our military.. and I'm not talking about the generals here, because while they issue the orders, it's the soldiers.. our volunteer, all citizen army.. the PEOPLE that control it de facto.. they, too, will wake up and remove the clouded lenses from their eyes you tried to force upon them, and they will turn against those who didn't listen either. They will realize they couldn't fire upon their brothers and sisters. They will realize that the ONLY POWER the government has, is what we LET them have. This is not what I hope for, this is not what I endorse. This is, however, one of hundreds of directions of unjust action in Syria could take us. It's time to learn from the past, and address OUR present, not the middle east.
It's time we shook those fists at the people who need them for once.

Ourselves.

tl;dr

No war. And please, do something about your attention spans.
 
2013-08-30 10:41:39 AM  
Witty Comment: stuff

You're wrong, of course.  The latest reports are, Assad is preparing to play passive over any retributive strikes that come from the Chemical weapon attack.  He has enough problems without provoking an aerial campaign by American forces.
 
2013-08-30 10:46:04 AM  

Witty Comment: ...but it's enough to cause a drop in a bucket that creates ripples, that overflow into the ocean it's in to create waves that could very well create a tsunami.


wellthatescalatedquickly.jpg

Not sure if syrious.
 
2013-08-30 10:48:41 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Low Budget Dave: It just amazes me that Obama watched the ungodly quagmire in Iraq, and is actually sitting around thinking: "I should try some of that same strategy in Syria."

Really? That's what you think is happening? Shiat, the article this thread links to actually explains it pretty well. Besides nobody is talking about sending in ground troops and so far it sounds like a Libya like "no fly zone" is pretty unlikely too. Maybe MAYBE there will be a limited bombing campaign targeting Assad's chemical weapons plants.


I understand what you are saying, it is just that I don't see the benefits of enforcing international laws that no other superpower seems interested in enforcing.

China, Russia, and now even Britain have made it clear that they are neutral.

In Iraq, there were a huge number of failures. Using the U.S. Army to destroy the government was only one in a long list. The no-fly zone seems workable, but what do we hope to accomplish?

Let's say we even toss a few cruise missiles into storage sheds, and bomb a few palaces. Do we really believe the government of Syria will admit their sins and knock it off? Do we think the powerless majority will celebrate the intervention and start to love the United States?

If this is just a message to Al-Bashir, then he will be thinking, either A: "Oh, OK. I can keep killing people by the thousand, as long as I don't use chemical weapons.", or C: "That wasn't so bad. If things here start to get out of control, I can use chemical weapons, and all it will do is cost me a few buildings."

Many dictators are already hesitant to use chemical weapons. Not because they fear the U.S., but because they fear what Russia or China might do. Once Russia and China have given permission, there is nothing the U.S. could possibly do to discourage future use of nerve gas.
 
2013-08-30 10:49:12 AM  

Sidecrab: It is the duty of the responsible nations to intervene in the affairs of the less responsible ones, that is what being an advanced nation is about.


Says who? The Middle East won't ever get its shiat together without changing its entire culture. Shooting missiles at it sure as hell won't do that.
 
2013-08-30 10:52:11 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-30 10:54:01 AM  

Low Budget Dave: Voiceofreason01: Low Budget Dave:If this is just a message to Al-Bashir, then he will be thinking, either A: "Oh, OK. I can keep killing people by the thousand, as long as I don't use chemical weapons.", or C: "That wasn't so bad. If things here start to get out of control, I can use chemical weapons, and all it will do is cost me a few buildings."

Many dictators are already hesitant to use chemical weapons. Not because they fear the U.S., but because they fear what Russia or China might do. Once Russia and China have given permission, there is nothing the U.S. could possibly do to discourage future use of nerve gas.


A is correct.  C will only be correct if the missile strikes aren't punishing enough.  I would not bet on the strikes being 'too soft', but that's just me.
 
2013-08-30 10:54:05 AM  

thefonz37: You know, it would be nice if, for once, just once, some other country could take the lead on this one.
We got (rightly) criticized to high holy hell for our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  So now it's your turn, France, or whoever, step up to the plate and show us how it's done.


We didn't get much criticism for the initial war in Afghanistan, and we had a huge international coalition helping us. The war was pretty justified, seeing as they were harboring and aiding terrorists that attacked us first. We also didn't actually start a war with the Afghan government. We took sides in an existing civil war.

But Iraq was a fiasco, and it led other countries to wonder what the hell they were doing helping us in Afghanistan which was enabling us to fight in Iraq. So 99% of all the criticism was really about Iraq.

But the reason we take the lead so often is because we have the largest, most expensive military in the world. And these little wars are pretty much training missions.

If you're keeping score, the French took the lead in the last major international intervention, which was Libya in 2011.
 
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM  
I saw no mention that the "Muslim Brotherhood" is just Al'KayDuh... Nor did i see mention that Our dear President is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood

/that's just downright STRANGE that the WashPo wouldn't dig into the actual DETAILS of the political issues...
/divide and conquer...
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report