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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Assad: You attack me, I take this whole region down with me. The world hasn't seen such regional destruction since the Great War. Also, I look like Captain Darling. Your justification for war is invalid   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 383
    More: Scary, Syrian President Bashar, Le Figaro, french newspapers, regions, Heads of state of Syria  
•       •       •

18078 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:44 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-03 08:15:23 AM
If he's Darling then who is Melchett in this situation?
 
2013-09-03 09:04:23 AM
He does look like Captain Darling.  Though, his dad looks even more like Captain Darling.  We should have suspected he was evil considering he goes with the Hitler 'stouche.
 
2013-09-03 09:06:15 AM
Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.
 
2013-09-03 09:07:48 AM
Fortunately chemical weapons don't hurt oil.  Which is the only part about that region we like.
 
2013-09-03 09:11:23 AM
Assad has always been a very creepy looking man. Very creepy. Its as if some twisted deity decided to make a face that looks like the very incarnation of amorality.
 
2013-09-03 09:17:31 AM
i.imgur.com  i270.photobucket.com

Also, he looks like Balloony from Phineas and Ferb. And that's also always been a creepy-ass face.
 
2013-09-03 09:25:16 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 305x349]  [i270.photobucket.com image 305x349]

Also, he looks like Balloony from Phineas and Ferb. And that's also always been a creepy-ass face.


It's his tiny features. Maybe this helps.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-03 09:29:05 AM
What is the matter with you, Darling?

t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-03 09:29:16 AM
Because we all saw how well that worked for Saddam and Moamar.
 
2013-09-03 09:46:29 AM
Standard threats.  This is hardly the first time a ME dictator has threatened such things.
 
2013-09-03 09:48:05 AM

BizarreMan: Because we all saw how well that worked for Saddam and Moamar.


Those were our guys, he is Putin's boy.
 
2013-09-03 09:49:49 AM

LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.


Congrats on passing your first day of IR 101.
 
2013-09-03 09:50:49 AM

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

Congrats on passing your first day of IR 101.


Ooh I love infrared
 
2013-09-03 09:53:07 AM
His dildo got stuck up in his ass so he's not feeling too good, he'll behave just fine again once he gets a scare and sharts it back out.
 
2013-09-03 09:53:52 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.
 
2013-09-03 09:55:04 AM
I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I think Obama is forcing a House vote on a Syrian strike because 1) it's a lose-lose for anyone running for House in 2014 so it's like a big middle finger to Congress and the House in particular, 2) he doesn't really want to invade Syria and needs a way to back out, and 3) he doesn't want to be impeached.

Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

When's Elon Musk going to become Ironman?
 
2013-09-03 09:55:39 AM
"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."


He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.
 
2013-09-03 09:56:12 AM
There's nothing cushy about the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corp!
 
2013-09-03 09:57:07 AM
I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:51 AM

bdub77: When's Elon Musk going to become Ironman?


No shiat... Someone needs to step up.
 
2013-09-03 09:58:08 AM
I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.
 
2013-09-03 09:59:32 AM
Ahh, I see his problem.
Like many, he assumes "the truth" has anything whatsoever to do with his sorry ass being removed.

Fools! Just like "the spoon", there is no true "truth", only theatre brought to you by the 1%.
You should feel swell. They still waste time manufacturing a "truth" for you.
Won't bother tomorrow.
 
2013-09-03 09:59:39 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.


It is telling that we don't get to see/hear the evidence. At least Colin Powell waved yellowcake around.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:05 AM

LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.


It's hard to say how much understanding they do have.  On the one hand it's obvious that the full might of a modern superpower could swat them like a fly there are several reasons why they might not consider this a real threat.

1) Western nations are very squeamish about letting their soldiers do their jobs.  They impose ROE and missions that hamstring their armed forces and cause unnecessary casualties on their own soldiers.  We also tend to get upset about any of our soldiers who die in combat and are easily fatigued by this.

2) Recent history of mismanaged conflicts points to the fact the barely literate and poorly trained insurgents can inflict damage on a western military. Sure that damage is usually at the expense of many more insurgent lives but see point one about why it's worth it for their leaders.  When they lose soldier they are 'martyrs' for the cause and everyone is happy.  When a national guardsman with a wife and two kids gets killed we are demoralized.

3)It's possible that these leaders have sycophant military "advisers" who tell them that they can stand toe to toe with the west and they don't have enough outside experience to know that they are being lied to.

4)They really haven't seen the full capabilities of a fully modern military because none of the recent conflicts have warranted anything other than cold war era hardware.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:17 AM

Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.


Then he should prepare for negotiations with the rebels. Ultimately, he's the guy that holds the keys here.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:29 AM

Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.


So...He's being a concern troll.
 
2013-09-03 10:00:29 AM
He be trollin' yo.
 
2013-09-03 10:01:03 AM
"I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?
 
2013-09-03 10:01:16 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.


There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?
 
2013-09-03 10:01:16 AM
Good
 
2013-09-03 10:01:17 AM
I thought he was in Iran?
2.bp.blogspot.com

What is the point of having international laws regarding the use of horrific weapons if it is not/selectively enforced?
 
2013-09-03 10:02:33 AM

Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?


ecetopuzlu.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 10:02:38 AM
Also.
Assad?
More like Sad Ass, amirite?
 
2013-09-03 10:03:08 AM

Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?


I believe those are called jokes. Lighten up.

There are plenty of other, more valid reasons to dislike the guy, if you want to get serious.
 
2013-09-03 10:03:22 AM

bdub77: Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.


I doubt it would even be as much as a no-fly. We're talking cruise missiles aimed at sites (relatively easy), nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table.

People are getting their panties wadded because they're afraid this is going to be Iraq War 2: Chemical Boogaloo even though it's virtually nothing like that situation. Syria has been known to have chems for a long time, has publicly stated as much, has almost certainly used them and is in an unstable situation that could lead to their disbursement to people who are very keen on duck-boating one into an American harbor someday. Pretty much as opposite as you can get from Iraq circa 2003.

But, of course, 200,000,000 complete and utter imbeciles didn't bother to think about anything for more than 911 seconds a decade ago and dumbly cheered George Bush the Dumber into a quagmire while abandoning troops on the real battlefield in Afghanistan turning the entire U.S. involvement in the region into a complete and utter disaster, so now we have to swing completely in the opposite direction because somehow undergoing an extreme reversal on interventionism will make up for that clusterfark...
/ tl;dr: Americans are dumb as dirt and fickle as hell
 
2013-09-03 10:03:52 AM

durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?


Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?
 
2013-09-03 10:04:30 AM
Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?
 
2013-09-03 10:04:57 AM

skozlaw: bdub77: Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

I doubt it would even be as much as a no-fly. We're talking cruise missiles aimed at sites (relatively easy), nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table.

People are getting their panties wadded because they're afraid this is going to be Iraq War 2: Chemical Boogaloo even though it's virtually nothing like that situation. Syria has been known to have chems for a long time, has publicly stated as much, has almost certainly used them and is in an unstable situation that could lead to their disbursement to people who are very keen on duck-boating one into an American harbor someday. Pretty much as opposite as you can get from Iraq circa 2003.

But, of course, 200,000,000 complete and utter imbeciles didn't bother to think about anything for more than 911 seconds a decade ago and dumbly cheered George Bush the Dumber into a quagmire while abandoning troops on the real battlefield in Afghanistan turning the entire U.S. involvement in the region into a complete and utter disaster, so now we have to swing completely in the opposite direction because somehow undergoing an extreme reversal on interventionism will make up for that clusterfark...
/ tl;dr: Americans are dumb as dirt and fickle as hell


Bolded for emphasis.
 
2013-09-03 10:05:09 AM
"Chaos and extremism will be widespread.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-03 10:05:40 AM

snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?


Syria is not going to be liberated by us.
 
2013-09-03 10:07:14 AM

Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.


Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.
 
2013-09-03 10:07:17 AM

snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?


... dude, there's two or three. Depends on whether you count Kuwait as "liberated all to hell" and whether or not you call Afghanistan "the Middle East". Iraq makes the list as the only definitive one.
 
2013-09-03 10:08:18 AM
I don't know who's mustache looks more pitiful - Assad's, or the one Obama sort of grew for the famous apology-to-islam speech in Cairo.

They both make me laugh.
 
2013-09-03 10:08:44 AM

DrunkBastard: Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.


Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.
 
2013-09-03 10:09:52 AM

Infernalist: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

Syria is not going to be liberated by us.


Why not? Afghanistan was.
 
2013-09-03 10:09:53 AM

DrunkBastard: Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.


If you are still burning $4 gas in your car, it apparently, went very well, all in all.
 
2013-09-03 10:09:58 AM

Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?


An Arab who can't grow a decent mustache? And I suppose you're not the least bit concerned.
 
2013-09-03 10:12:56 AM

skozlaw: nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table


This is really not true, though. They had a former general (Jack Keane) on BBC today talking about just that (talking about actions that would try to influence the outcome to this thing to our liking, but at the same time saying the US wouldn't do that - it was basically high level bullsh*t).

There will always be some war hawks. Whether or not Obama is seriously considering that is a different matter.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:08 AM

LasersHurt: Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?

I believe those are called jokes. Lighten up.


Francis must be a blast at parties.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:09 AM

URAPNIS: Infernalist: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

Syria is not going to be liberated by us.

Why not? Afghanistan was.


Nobody is suggesting anything even remotely LIKE Afghanistan.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:32 AM
Subby could get a job at Fox.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:48 AM

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?


Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:10 AM

bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.


I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:29 AM

DrunkBastard: I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval por


Russia ain't going to war to defend Assad. They'll hamstring the Security Council and take other diplomatic measures, but the risk of actual military intervention is zero.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:32 AM

LasersHurt: URAPNIS: Infernalist: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

Syria is not going to be liberated by us.

Why not? Afghanistan was.

Nobody is suggesting anything even remotely LIKE Afghanistan.


Yea, there is NO farking opium in Syria.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:42 AM
Good.

Wave of holy fire and all that.  Do it already.  The quicker we can forget about the farking middle east the better.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:52 AM

URAPNIS: Infernalist: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

Syria is not going to be liberated by us.

Why not? Afghanistan was.


Not sure if serious. Liberated?  Afghanistan is a f*cking mess.
 
2013-09-03 10:15:51 AM
Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.
 
2013-09-03 10:17:45 AM

netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.


As long as it is your debt and not that of the 1% War Profiteers'.
 
2013-09-03 10:18:54 AM
img.fark.netimg.fark.net
 
2013-09-03 10:19:36 AM
somewhat related

This weekend, my Tea Party loving father told me how impressive Putin is when we were discussing the ramifications of Syria. He gets all his talking points from the usual suspects. He also shat all over John McCain because of his comments that may have sounded like they were originally supportive of Obama.

So, the most noble America loving are now enamored with a foreign leader that hates us, want us to not go to war because the President might want to (even though they have never avoided war talk in the past - strong military spending and such) and continue to turn their backs on the man they think should have originally won the White House.

7 years ago my father was a registered Democrat - then he got old and a nonwhite man became president.

/not CSB
 
2013-09-03 10:19:43 AM
If you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body
 
2013-09-03 10:19:44 AM
Anyone else see a picture of Assad and be surprised that he looks like a farking Norweigan and not some dark swarthy middle easterner?
 
2013-09-03 10:20:05 AM

netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.


We'll just have to "liberate" our debt to China down the road.
 
2013-09-03 10:20:30 AM

ReverendJasen: LasersHurt: Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?

I believe those are called jokes. Lighten up.

Francis must be a blast at parties.


You must be awesome at funerals.

/sorry your logon + low hanging fruit
 
2013-09-03 10:20:43 AM

YoOjo: His dildo got stuck up in his ass so he's not feeling too good, he'll behave just fine again once he gets a scare and sharts it back out.


Experience speaks...
 
2013-09-03 10:20:49 AM
And wtf is up with all the evil politicians having extremely close eyes? Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, etc....
 
2013-09-03 10:21:14 AM

netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.



That's pretty close.  Once the shooting starts, and the 'limited strikes' start expanding, this war will be used to justify increasing the debt ceiling and to silence dissent on obamacare (not to mention silencing inquiries into the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc,).

Thus, the 'urgency' of this...
 
2013-09-03 10:21:18 AM
I don't know why we are the middle man and just let China handle it.
 
2013-09-03 10:21:39 AM

snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.


If you don't grasp it, I can't help you.  Well, I could, but I don't really feel up to trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
 
2013-09-03 10:22:06 AM
So yeah, still no actual evidence that the Syrian regime launched that attack.

More evidence that the rebels actually did, as they are claiming:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE 94 409Z20130505

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
...
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added[.]


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/20137920448105510.h tm l

Russia has presented evidence to the UN it says shows Syrian rebels attacked regime forces with sarin gas that was produced in "cottage industry" conditions.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russian experts had been to the scene of the attack at Khan al-Assal near Aleppo and gathered firsthand evidence.

He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile was "not a standard one for chemical use".

He added that, according to information gathered by Russia, production of the projectiles started in February by the "Basha'ir al-Nasr' brigade", which is affiliated with the Free Syrian Army.


From May and July, respectively.

Thanks for your time, continue with your idiotic posturing and dick waving that will certainly not come back to bite your children's generation in the ass.
 
2013-09-03 10:22:10 AM
So, you'll take down Assad, and in will come a Al-Qaeda friendly gov't.


Good plan.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:02 AM

indarwinsshadow: So, you'll take down Assad, and in will come a Al-Qaeda friendly gov't.


Today in "under-informed fear mongering"...
 
2013-09-03 10:23:09 AM

you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.


Assad is likely a mass murdering war criminal but I don't think he is engaging in genocide. He seems to be killing anyone who disagree with him not targeting people of a specific race, religion or nationality.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:20 AM

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?


People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:37 AM
I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge that Obama just fabricated the whole red line. There's literally zero evidence that it exists except as a conceit of his imagination.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:11 AM

snocone: Ahh, I see his problem.
Like many, he assumes "the truth" has anything whatsoever to do with his sorry ass being removed.

Fools! Just like "the spoon", there is no true "truth", only theatre brought to you by the 1%.
You should feel swell. They still waste time manufacturing a "truth" for you.
Won't bother tomorrow.


I can actually visualize the  Che Guevara shirt you're wearing while you type that.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:19 AM
SHOW US PROOF!

uh.  how about we don't care.  But crimes against humanity!
Nobody called the world police, so lets stay home.

If anything, the reliance on drones has made war so easy with so few casualties on our side, that we might get involved in order to justify a larger defense budget.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:28 AM

doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.


Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.
 
2013-09-03 10:25:03 AM
As said by the guy cornered with his gun to his head...

With or without a US strike, the chances of a regional war are probably better than 50%. Slightly higher if there is a strike.

I say let Netanyahu do it.
 
2013-09-03 10:26:24 AM

you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.


I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?
 
2013-09-03 10:27:05 AM

LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.


What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.
 
2013-09-03 10:27:09 AM

LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.


yeah they have to keep up the facade. Saddam was the same way.
 
2013-09-03 10:28:14 AM

Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.


None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.
 
2013-09-03 10:28:48 AM

Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.

If you don't grasp it, I can't help you.  Well, I could, but I don't really feel up to trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.


Here, have another hank of rope.
Maybe 1,500 killed by CW.
100,000 by hand to hand.
But, what do numbers mean when we are talking outrage and ire?
 
2013-09-03 10:29:03 AM

LasersHurt: Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.

None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.


Then lets leave the 'international community' out of the issue. They don't seem too concerned.
 
2013-09-03 10:29:37 AM
He first has to unload a lorry load of paperclips.
 
2013-09-03 10:30:34 AM

bdub77: you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?


Yea, it would be so much better to drop a nice clean Tomahawk on the school that shields the radar installation.
Not to mention the hospital built on top of communications bunker.
Just wow.
 
2013-09-03 10:30:56 AM

Carth: LasersHurt: Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.

None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.

Then lets leave the 'international community' out of the issue. They don't seem too concerned.


I guess you're not getting the point? He said it was "ego" and "  "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality ". I'm suggesting that it's more about international convention, and he's just phrasing it shiattily. Whether or not the other nations have decided to ignore it is not really relevant.
 
2013-09-03 10:31:16 AM

Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?


Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country.  Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing.  But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it.  I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.
 
2013-09-03 10:31:18 AM

Shrugging Atlas: snocone: Ahh, I see his problem.
Like many, he assumes "the truth" has anything whatsoever to do with his sorry ass being removed.

Fools! Just like "the spoon", there is no true "truth", only theatre brought to you by the 1%.
You should feel swell. They still waste time manufacturing a "truth" for you.
Won't bother tomorrow.

I can actually visualize the  Che Guevara shirt you're wearing while you type that.


CHE LIVES!
 
2013-09-03 10:34:55 AM

seniorgato: SHOW US PROOF!

uh.  how about we don't care.  But crimes against humanity!
Nobody called the world police, so lets stay home.

If anything, the reliance on drones has made war so easy with so few casualties on our side, that we might get involved in order to justify a larger defense budget.



I don't think we have even started to see the Politics of this start yet.    When Congress gets to starting the back room deals on Capitol Hill,  you could end up with a removal of the Budget cap for October.   Deals to remove sequestration.   Hell, if Obama plays this right he might get the nod to throw in a slight tax increase (and get to pick what he chooses to spend it on).

You want to strike Syria? wellllllll....we're gonna have to cut some deals.....How much debt we want to rack up boys!?   Step up to the table, lets play.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:17 AM

Carth: You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.



Canada?

What about the REST of the Western Hemisphere?
 
2013-09-03 10:35:19 AM

bdub77: you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?


In this case, toppling assad/killing assad will only lead to some other bad guys being in charge over there.  I'll be happy with us removing the ability to use CWs.  Screw assad, let the rebels deal with him.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:31 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: And wtf is up with all the evil politicians having extremely close eyes? Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, etc....


Maybe they are Reptiloids?
 
2013-09-03 10:35:33 AM
Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.
 
2013-09-03 10:36:00 AM
You know who else is pretty good at killing civilians?
 
2013-09-03 10:36:05 AM

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?


No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.
 
2013-09-03 10:37:04 AM

Dog Welder: Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country.  Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing.  But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it.  I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.


Doesn't matter who did it.  Either it was Assad or the rebels.  The most prudent path to take would be to eliminate the launching vehicles on both sides so that we ensure that whoever did it, they won't be able to do it again.
 
2013-09-03 10:39:01 AM

durbnpoisn: No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.


The overall deaths amount to a few hundred a day, mostly of fighters. The chemical attacks killed, what, 1400 people at once, mostly civilians?

The difference is between discriminate weapons that you aim at troops, versus indiscriminate area affect weapons aimed at civilian populations.

This creates enough difference in the cases to acknowledge it, for many people.
 
2013-09-03 10:39:28 AM

Yes please: I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge...


Isn't that adorable!
 
2013-09-03 10:43:25 AM
Looks like someone has learned a thing or two from North Korea.
 
2013-09-03 10:44:01 AM

durbnpoisn: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.


Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid the site of the chemicals as they can linger in the soil and on any surface not directly flooded by rain water.  They don't need to be breathed in, merely touching them is enough to cause death.

Lastly, they kill far easier than conventional weapons.  CWs ignore things like cover and barricades and protections.  Only specially designed air-tight bunkers and vehicles are sufficient protection from CW attacks.  The use of CWs allows the user to kill far larger numbers in a shorter period of time, making wars easier to manage and continue to a well-gassed finish.   You throw that 110k around like it's meaningful.  With CW attacks, Assad could kill that many in a month instead of 2 years.

Do you see it yet?  How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again?  Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons?   Do you see it now?
 
2013-09-03 10:44:34 AM
Another vote for staying the hell out of it. This is my opinion, and is in no way meant to be informed commentary on foreign policy or "telling other people what to think". I have no ties to the GOP and do not support them.

/covering my bases before 21-7-B shows up.
 
2013-09-03 10:44:36 AM
Syria is currently doing exactly the opposite of what they should be.  If they had any brains they would admit to the chemical attack, blame it on a break in the chain of command or rogue elements or 'rebel sympathizers', order a few trials of the people responsible, state 'those responsible have been sacked' and promise that it won't happen again.  All of this 'You can't prove anything, and you're too chicken to do anything even if you could' rhetoric just makes it more likely that the U.S. will feel forced to lob a few tomahawks at something.

And if Syria really is crazy enough to go after Israel in retaliation, then yes it will probably lead to a larger conflict, but no one will come of that conflict any worse than Syria.
 
2013-09-03 10:46:13 AM
Familiar?
mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-09-03 10:46:36 AM
The USA getting entangled in a Middle East quagmire?
cdn.instanttrap.com
 
2013-09-03 10:47:04 AM

LasersHurt: darwin


LOL. Ok, have fun being a target then. Muslims sure as hell hate you already. Why not just add a few more to the list.

....ever notice how the rest of the planet is staying out this sh*t...and the only people pushing for a strike. Are the French. Nah. Ignore it. You got to be right, because it never backfires on you. Does it?
 
2013-09-03 10:47:16 AM

Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.


I like this idea.  Let's take it further, and start sending busloads of overweight American tourists over to wander around the palace taking pictures with iphones.
 
2013-09-03 10:47:51 AM

Infernalist: Dog Welder: Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country.  Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing.  But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it.  I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.

Doesn't matter who did it.  Either it was Assad or the rebels.  The most prudent path to take would be to eliminate the launching vehicles on both sides so that we ensure that whoever did it, they won't be able to do it again.


So now we're attacking both the rebels and Assad's forces?  That wouldn't be a massive clusterfark for us?
 
2013-09-03 10:48:08 AM

Infernalist: Do you see it yet? How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again? Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons? Do you see it now?


We're not the only country in the world with an interest in stopping the use of CWs. Stop pretending like somehow the US should be the caped crusader that has to do this, because we're not. We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.
 
2013-09-03 10:48:27 AM

Infernalist: Dog Welder: Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country.  Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing.  But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it.  I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.

Doesn't matter who did it.  Either it was Assad or the rebels.  The most prudent path to take would be to eliminate the launching vehicles on both sides so that we ensure that whoever did it, they won't be able to do it again.


this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.
 
2013-09-03 10:49:30 AM
Yo Assad I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but
Stalin had the best dictator mustache of all time!  OF ALL TIME
 
2013-09-03 10:49:43 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Carth: You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.


Canada?

What about the REST of the Western Hemisphere?


What about it?
 
2013-09-03 10:49:51 AM

Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.


Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.
 
2013-09-03 10:50:08 AM

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid the site of the ...


That is some right fine imagination you got there, boy.
You sound like exactly like what we have come to expect from years of government training.
 
2013-09-03 10:50:26 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Carth: You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.


Canada?

What about the REST of the Western Hemisphere?


Come on! He has the French on his side!!. Ooooo. Ahhhh. The French. The scary scary French. Everyone run. The French are coming....the same asshats that had America entrenched in a 25 year war in Vietnam so they could preserve colonialism and slavery. 50,000 + American dead later, that didn't work out so hot.
 
2013-09-03 10:51:38 AM

Begoggle: Yo Assad I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but
Stalin had the best dictator mustache of all time!  OF ALL TIME


Not even close the "The" meme, Hitler.
 
2013-09-03 10:51:52 AM

Kit Fister: Infernalist: Do you see it yet? How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again? Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons? Do you see it now?

We're not the only country in the world with an interest in stopping the use of CWs. Stop pretending like somehow the US should be the caped crusader that has to do this, because we're not. We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.


It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria.  I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.
 
2013-09-03 10:53:04 AM

snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid th ...


Anyone who doubts me on the effects and abilities of Chemical Weapons is free to read up on it themselves.
 
2013-09-03 10:54:07 AM

dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.


So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?
 
2013-09-03 10:54:09 AM

LasersHurt: indarwinsshadow: So, you'll take down Assad, and in will come a Al-Qaeda friendly gov't.

Today in "under-informed fear mongering"...


Yea, sure, because Libya and Egypt was in no way a sign of things to come.
 
2013-09-03 10:54:47 AM
img.fark.netapi.ning.com
Am I the only one that sees it?

/probably
 
2013-09-03 10:54:53 AM

Kit Fister: If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?


Because they could fight back.
 
2013-09-03 10:55:13 AM

Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.


They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.
 
2013-09-03 10:56:20 AM

Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.


I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.
 
2013-09-03 10:56:57 AM

Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria.   I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.


Then what do they need us for... and what are they waiting on?
 
2013-09-03 10:57:26 AM

Kit Fister: Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.


I'm sure the world will be a much better place if the Russians were the ones leading the world.  Or maybe the Chinese.

Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?
 
2013-09-03 10:57:38 AM

skozlaw: Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.


Terrorist groups were able to make Sarin gas and use it in attacks 2 decades ago. Do you really think lack of availability is what is stopping them from using it today?
 
2013-09-03 10:57:43 AM

Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can ...


You go read.
I'll take my first hand experience, TYVM.
 
2013-09-03 10:58:53 AM

Carth: skozlaw: Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.

Terrorist groups were able to make Sarin gas and use it in attacks 2 decades ago. Do you really think lack of availability is what is stopping them from using it today?


It's not that at all.  It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it.  Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:22 AM
Look, we're going to do what the Military Industrial Complex wants us to do, period.  Accept that.
In the mean time, is it just me or does he have the same feature set that Unka Mitty did?

static.tumblr.com

Big head, small face.
Didn't John Lee Hooker have a song like that?
 
2013-09-03 11:00:08 AM

Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.

I'm sure the world will be a much better place if the Russians were the ones leading the world.  Or maybe the Chinese.

Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?


Again, it's not our job. And, we're *totally* leading the world right now, in obesity and that's about it.
 
2013-09-03 11:00:12 AM
Ah, remember the good ol' days when the American government wasn't chomping at the bit every couple of years to blow up some far-flung corner of the world?

Yeah, me neither.
 
2013-09-03 11:00:18 AM

Neighborhood Watch: netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.


That's pretty close.  Once the shooting starts, and the 'limited strikes' start expanding, this war will be used to justify increasing the debt ceiling and to silence dissent on obamacare (not to mention silencing inquiries into the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc,).

Thus, the 'urgency' of this...


Well, if this is the attitude in the derposphere, I'm upping my position in Alcoa and Reynolds.
 
2013-09-03 11:00:45 AM

snocone: Infernalist:
Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.


...riiiiight... Obama just <i>decided</i> to portray chemical weapons as a Bad Thing <i>last week</i> in order to sell us on military action, because he's such a war-monger. That's definitely what happened. Both sides are bad, so Obama is just like Bush.  Obama has just been itching for a war, and chemical weapons aren't actually a big deal.
 
2013-09-03 11:01:05 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: LasersHurt: indarwinsshadow: So, you'll take down Assad, and in will come a Al-Qaeda friendly gov't.

Today in "under-informed fear mongering"...

Yea, sure, because Libya and Egypt was in no way a sign of things to come.


notsureifserious.png
 
2013-09-03 11:01:08 AM

Marcintosh: Look, we're going to do what the Military Industrial Complex wants us to do, period.  Accept that.
In the mean time, is it just me or does he have the same feature set that Unka Mitty did?

[static.tumblr.com image 410x304]

Big head, small face.
Didn't John Lee Hooker have a song like that?


A politician is a fellow willing to lay down your life for his country.
Doesn't matter what they look like.
 
2013-09-03 11:02:18 AM

Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.


You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).
 
2013-09-03 11:03:26 AM
He reminds me more of ole' Dimwit Flathead

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 11:03:49 AM
cnsnews.com

I can smell you from here.

www.theblaze.com

Seriously John, you smell like a  French whore.

thisainthell.us

Nancy, you smell like you couldn't dodge the mall perfume ladies.

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

This is better.  The smell of falafel masks you both.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:05 AM

Infernalist: Carth: skozlaw: Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.

Terrorist groups were able to make Sarin gas and use it in attacks 2 decades ago. Do you really think lack of availability is what is stopping them from using it today?

It's not that at all.  It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it.  Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.


yea, they might be arrested, prosecuted and forced to change their name like Aum Shinrikyo.

Terrorists don't use chemical weapons because for the amount of effort, planning and luck involved they can get a higher body count other ways. People who are willing to suicide bomb aren't exactly worried about what will happen if they get caught.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:22 AM

Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).


Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:46 AM

the_foo: snocone: Infernalist:
Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.

...riiiiight... Obama just <i>decided</i> to portray chemical weapons as a Bad Thing <i>last week</i> in order to sell us on military action, because he's such a war-monger. That's definitely what happened. Both sides are bad, so Obama is just like Bush.  Obama has just been itching for a war, and chemical weapons aren't actually a big deal.


Listen idiot, there are perfectly good reasons NOT to use chemical and biological agents.
None of them confused with your petty "morality" you have been spoon fed by the political heros.
You don't use them because they are not controllable and ALWAYS bite your ass. Not because they are not "nice".
 
2013-09-03 11:04:51 AM

the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.


No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.
 
2013-09-03 11:06:10 AM
Old farking news. It was obvious he wasn't going to go out like a biatch.
 
2013-09-03 11:07:21 AM

Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.


LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?
 
2013-09-03 11:07:38 AM

Kit Fister: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?


I responded to your bout of ignorance yesterday about this. Again:

the US isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting in world affairs.

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya).  France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
 
2013-09-03 11:08:57 AM

Billy Bathsalt: Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.

I like this idea.  Let's take it further, and start sending busloads of overweight American tourists over to wander around the palace taking pictures with iphones.


Put a Starbucks next to a wal-mart (with another Starbucks inside the wal-mart), and schedule air drops of Entertainment Weekly. Syria would be ours in matter of weeks
 
2013-09-03 11:10:13 AM

dumbobruni: Kit Fister: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?

I responded to your bout of ignorance yesterday about this. Again:

the US isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting in world affairs.

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya).  France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


You're right, my bad. But that doesn't explain why you're so desperate for us to use military action here.
 
2013-09-03 11:10:39 AM

Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?


he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.
 
2013-09-03 11:11:06 AM
Lasers in the jungle somewhere
Staccato signals of constant information
A loose affiliation of millionaires
And billionaires and baby
These are the days of miracle and wonder
 
2013-09-03 11:11:07 AM
Unlike Libya, Or Iraq I and II or Afghanistan, there are no legal fig leafs to hide under, he has to have this Congressional approval.  I can't see Congress voting to approve this intervention. The left doesn't want it; the right doesn't want it. Obama's supporters are tepid, his enemies adamant on refusing to aid him.

And I'm very ok with that. Let someone else jump in if they think its that important.
 
2013-09-03 11:11:57 AM

snocone: Lasers in the jungle somewhere


I thought it was awfully humid
 
2013-09-03 11:12:26 AM

dumbobruni: Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.


Once built, destroying them is problematic.
 
2013-09-03 11:12:32 AM
content6.flixster.com: Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread
 
2013-09-03 11:12:41 AM

dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.


Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.
 
2013-09-03 11:13:34 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.


Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.
 
2013-09-03 11:14:18 AM

Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.


Umm, I see your problem,,,
"eliminate"
Yea, about how to do that,,,
 
2013-09-03 11:14:35 AM
The part that bothers me is, he's not entirely wrong. It would be like ignighting a powder keg. He already has Hamas fighting on his side, and russia supplying arms. On top of that, on the "rebel" side, Al Qaeda has become a large enough force to be of concern. While the singular power of Syria isn't a huge concern to countries like the US, or even Israel, it's the conglomeration of a multitude of factions that farking hate eachother(sunni/shi'ite, mainly)such as Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

 Maybe, just this once, we should look down while walking through the pasture, and make sure we avoid that big, stinky, explosive cow-pat...
 
2013-09-03 11:15:10 AM

incrdbil: The left doesn't want it; the right doesn't want it. Obama's supporters are tepid, his enemies adamant on refusing to aid him.


I have been thinking this too but lately based on the way they are pushing for it I am wondering if the lawmakers will vote for it even though there isn't a lot of support. I am sure there are a lot of military contractors lobbying for an attack and really they have more sway than all americans.
 
2013-09-03 11:15:19 AM

Kit Fister: Another vote for staying the hell out of it. This is my opinion, and is in no way meant to be informed commentary on foreign policy or "telling other people what to think". I have no ties to the GOP and do not support them.

/covering my bases before 21-7-B shows up.


This X 100
 
2013-09-03 11:16:06 AM

mainstreet62: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.


Since those "sites" are schools, hospitals, public offices, as the guy on AGT sang, "Whatca gonna do?"
 
2013-09-03 11:16:55 AM

indarwinsshadow: LasersHurt: darwin

LOL. Ok, have fun being a target then. Muslims sure as hell hate you already. Why not just add a few more to the list.

....ever notice how the rest of the planet is staying out this sh*t...and the only people pushing for a strike. Are the French. Nah. Ignore it. You got to be right, because it never backfires on you. Does it?



If there were any merit to attacking Syria, there would be little problem putting together a coalition of nations.
Lots of nations have the capability.       EU, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Jordan blah blah blah....

Attacks will change little.    They will just put nations more in debt.    It's Syria's civil war.   Do not meddle.
 
2013-09-03 11:17:45 AM

Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.


then what?
 
2013-09-03 11:18:21 AM
"Chaos and extremism will be widespread."


Uh... has he been outside of his palace before?
 
2013-09-03 11:18:43 AM

dumbobruni: Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.


I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing.  And yes, they should be removed from play.  But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?!  Why not the UN?  Why not Israel, since they are right there?  Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?
 
2013-09-03 11:18:43 AM
HELP!

Assad suggested it was illogical to think his army would have employed chemical weapons on Aug. 21 in Damascus, where its own soldiers were stationed.

That being the case.... How many of Assad's troop's are listed as among the dead?
Or, were these little gems used:
www.specwargear.com
 
2013-09-03 11:19:38 AM

LasersHurt: Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 305x349]  [i270.photobucket.com image 305x349]

Also, he looks like Balloony from Phineas and Ferb. And that's also always been a creepy-ass face.

It's his tiny features. Maybe this helps.

[i.imgur.com image 305x349]


First hearty laugh of the day. Thank you for that.
 
2013-09-03 11:19:43 AM
www.enduringamerica.com
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-09-03 11:20:03 AM

Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.


Challenge: those sites are hospitals, schools and public buildings. We can't exactly send in special forces or hit them with missiles.
 
2013-09-03 11:20:08 AM

p the boiler: somewhat related

This weekend, my Tea Party loving father told me how impressive Putin is when we were discussing the ramifications of Syria. He gets all his talking points from the usual suspects. He also shat all over John McCain because of his comments that may have sounded like they were originally supportive of Obama.

So, the most noble America loving are now enamored with a foreign leader that hates us, want us to not go to war because the President might want to (even though they have never avoided war talk in the past - strong military spending and such) and continue to turn their backs on the man they think should have originally won the White House.

7 years ago my father was a registered Democrat - then he got old and a nonwhite man became president.

/not CSB



You just described the majority of the country.
 
2013-09-03 11:20:39 AM
Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?
 
2013-09-03 11:21:11 AM

InfrasonicTom: Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.

then what?


S'mores?
 
2013-09-03 11:21:27 AM

durbnpoisn: I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing. And yes, they should be removed from play. But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?! Why not the UN? Why not Israel, since they are right there? Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?


But remember:

dumbobruni:

I responded to your bout of ignorance yesterday about this. Again:

the US isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting in world affairs.

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya).  France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


So, remember, kids, it's OK because the US doesn't intervene *everywhere*, and thinking that it's bad that we do is stupid.
 
2013-09-03 11:22:21 AM

durbnpoisn: dumbobruni: Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing.  And yes, they should be removed from play.  But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?!  Why not the UN?  Why not Israel, since they are right there?  Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?


OOh ooh, I know, money.
And we work cheap for the 1%.
 
2013-09-03 11:22:26 AM

InfrasonicTom: Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.

then what?


Then we go to lunch?
 
2013-09-03 11:22:27 AM

dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.


I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist.  My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons.  My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us?  We take out Assad and then what?  We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons?  You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.
 
2013-09-03 11:22:33 AM

Carth: Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.

Challenge: those sites are hospitals, schools and public buildings. We can't exactly send in special forces or hit them with missiles.


Not my problem. They should've thought about that before they built hospitals and schools on chemical weapons sites. Duh.
 
2013-09-03 11:22:59 AM
majorspoilers.com
 
2013-09-03 11:23:08 AM

dionysusaur: Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?


So because the  regional maps imposed by colonial powers didn't work we should force them to reorganize based on ethnic/sectarian lines? Fark that if they want to reorganize the entire region let them deal with it and have the US stay as far away as possible.
 
2013-09-03 11:26:16 AM
So... if we attack he'll start a war that has everyone in the region wiping out their neighbor, thus leaving nothing but a human free wasteland above a series of trillion dollar oil fields.
This was the "threat"?
Does he understand how threats work?

/Explain to me why we haven't fired the missiles yet?
/Did the sequester cut the drone inventory or something?
 
2013-09-03 11:26:29 AM

Kit Fister: Carth: Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.

Challenge: those sites are hospitals, schools and public buildings. We can't exactly send in special forces or hit them with missiles.

Not my problem. They should've thought about that before they built hospitals and schools on chemical weapons sites. Duh.


That is why we have been blowing most of 'em up and building new ones.
At your no small expense, natch.
 
2013-09-03 11:26:40 AM

InfrasonicTom: Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.

then what?


Football season starts Thursday. So we do it in the morning and catch the game that evening. Friday, I'll go down to the Corner and have ribs at the Biltmore. I'm not sure what all that has to do with anything, but you did ask.
 
2013-09-03 11:27:19 AM

bdub77: Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress


Until they say no, and then he'll do it anyway.
 
2013-09-03 11:27:31 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 305x349]  [i270.photobucket.com image 305x349]

Also, he looks like Balloony from Phineas and Ferb. And that's also always been a creepy-ass face.


There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxilliary Baloon Corps!
 
2013-09-03 11:27:52 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 305x349]  [i270.photobucket.com image 305x349]

Also, he looks like Balloony from Phineas and Ferb. And that's also always been a creepy-ass face.


Agreed.  Balloony is really weird.
 
2013-09-03 11:29:26 AM

mainstreet62: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.


Blowing up chemical weapons with a missile is too much like dynamiting a whale to get it off your beach.
 
2013-09-03 11:29:55 AM

bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I think Obama is forcing a House vote on a Syrian strike because 1) it's a lose-lose for anyone running for House in 2014 so it's like a big middle finger to Congress and the House in particular, 2) he doesn't really want to invade Syria and needs a way to back out, and 3) he doesn't want to be impeached.

Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.


1) agreed
2) He wouldn't have to had he not painted himself into a corner with his STUPID 'red-line' comment on chemical warfare last year.  Now he HAS to either do something, or look like a chump.  Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out.  Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past.  So why start now?  It's not like he NEEDS congressional approval to pull the trigger (as it were).  He's the commander in chief.  When/If he says go, they go.
3) Agreed.  Why?  Because that would hurt his fragile ego even more than doing nothing in Syria.  Look.  People can apologize for him all they want, but he really stuck his foot in his mouth last year.  And now he's been called on it.  So his only hope is that he doesn't get congressional approval and spins faster than ever in an attempt to make people believe that actually matters to him AFTER he's done end-runs around it in the past.  So yeah.  He's between the rock and a hard place he put HIMSELF in.  My prediction?  He's too much of a megalomaniac to do nothing even if congress won't go for it.  He'll do 'something' with or without approval.  What do I THINK he should do?  I think he should swallow his pride for once and do nothing.  But he won't.
 
2013-09-03 11:30:26 AM

Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.


Dog Welder: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist.  My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons.  My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us?  We take out Assad and then what?  We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons?  You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.


don't care who used them, they need to be removed from play.

Israel already bombed a weapons convoy in Syria without provocation, and WW3 didn't start.

in the first Iraq war, Saddam hit Israel with over 40 missiles. WW3 didn't start.
 
2013-09-03 11:30:26 AM
"If you cross your red line, a great country will be destroyed"
 
2013-09-03 11:30:37 AM
www.aim.org

"Chemical weapons?"

atlantablackstar.com

"Yes, I do think the rebels are using chemical weapons.  Probably those WMDs from Iraq, if ya know what I mean."
 
2013-09-03 11:31:23 AM
Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.
 
2013-09-03 11:34:04 AM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:  Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out.  Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past.  So why start now?


The first sentence answers the question at the end, IMO he made that comment a year ago it's a more complicated situation on the ground now so to get out of attacking pass it on to congress and after they get off their vacations they can vote on it. The if they vote no it's on them and if they vote yes it's on them, politically it was a brilliant move.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:09 AM

Marine1: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

... dude, there's two or three. Depends on whether you count Kuwait as "liberated all to hell" and whether or not you call Afghanistan "the Middle East". Iraq makes the list as the only definitive one.


Iran was still in the ME the last I checked. We liberated the shiat out of them in the 50s.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:56 AM
beldar.blogs.com

""Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."
 
2013-09-03 11:37:04 AM

I_C_Weener: Probably those WMDs from Iraq


I don't think nonexistent weapons can actually do anything in the real world.
 
2013-09-03 11:40:09 AM
Eh.  This shiat happens.  Mankind is still in it's infancy.
 
2013-09-03 11:41:29 AM

Diogenes: Yes please: I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge...

Isn't that adorable!


You might want to read the rest of his post there, Lou.
 
2013-09-03 11:43:02 AM

incrdbil: Unlike Libya, Or Iraq I and II or Afghanistan, there are no legal fig leafs to hide under, he has to have this Congressional approval.  I can't see Congress voting to approve this intervention. The left doesn't want it; the right doesn't want it. Obama's supporters are tepid, his enemies adamant on refusing to aid him.

And I'm very ok with that. Let someone else jump in if they think its that important.


Actually he still has 90 days or just needs the French or Turks to launch the opening shot then treaty obligation blah blah blah.  And the Republicans are going to vote yes because they will tie a defense budget increase to it
 
2013-09-03 11:45:54 AM
Assad has really flown off the handle ever since he found out that Walt poisoned Brock.
 
2013-09-03 11:46:45 AM
Looks like the guy that sold me a used car.
 
2013-09-03 11:46:56 AM

dumbobruni: don't care who used them, they need to be removed from play.

Israel already bombed a weapons convoy in Syria without provocation, and WW3 didn't start.

in the first Iraq war, Saddam hit Israel with over 40 missiles. WW3 didn't start.


Fine. i concede. Let's go bomb Syria balls out and take out the chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-03 11:49:46 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Diogenes: Yes please: I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge...

Isn't that adorable!

You might want to read the rest of his post there, Lou.


Shhh, let him shoot from the hip.  Its good to see more people shoot first, then ask questions.
 
2013-09-03 11:50:13 AM

69gnarkill69: [www.enduringamerica.com image 298x420]
[assets.diylol.com image 510x383]


Oh, my god.  Someone please do the Wol Smoth tiny face thing to that first picture.  I have to see what it would look like
 
2013-09-03 11:50:15 AM
So the "change" part of "hope and change" actually meant slightly changing the theater of war and expanding it.

/nobel peace prize winner
 
2013-09-03 11:50:57 AM

foxyshadis: Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.


You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.
 
2013-09-03 11:51:06 AM
Oh, good, a new one. "yay"
 
2013-09-03 11:51:40 AM
Hate to say it, but the guy sounds a lot more logical and aware than our people.
 
2013-09-03 11:52:01 AM

I_C_Weener: Shhh, let him shoot from the hip. Its good to see more people shoot first, then ask questions.


Well, in his defense, the person he is shooting at does have a bit of a history of being a troll.  But in this case he was doing some high quality humor/funny trolling.
 
2013-09-03 11:53:30 AM

Autarky: So the "change" part of "hope and change" actually meant slightly changing the theater of war and expanding it.

/nobel peace prize winner


I think the whole Libya, Egypt, Syria stuff is a consequence of Afghanistan, Iraq and our support of Israel, and Turkey being a strong part of NATO.  Enough pressure is placed on an area, and it starts to crack.  Hopefully, the result is more post-Iron Curtain, not post-assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
 
2013-09-03 11:54:00 AM

Dog Welder: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist.  My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons.  My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us?  We take out Assad and then what?  We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons?  You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.


THIS.
 
2013-09-03 11:54:11 AM

nucular_option: There's nothing cushy about the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corp!


That's why I'm joining the 20 Minuters!

/Err, sorry old chap, me ears went pop on the first go.
 
2013-09-03 11:55:48 AM

Billy Bathsalt: I like this idea. Let's take it further, and start sending busloads of overweight American tourists over to wander around the palace taking pictures with iphones.


Tourists? I say we take all of the info that the NSA is collecting and use it to reinstate the draft. They could easily mine through forum posts to look for true patriots like Infernalist who would obviously have no qualms about going over there and forcibly spreading some freedom. Then we draft these badasses, give them some weapons and air drop them on Damascus.
 
2013-09-03 11:56:46 AM

ferretman: You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.


Not according to the Air Force.
 
2013-09-03 11:56:51 AM

Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.


I like the way you think.
 
2013-09-03 11:57:03 AM

Yes please: I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge that Obama just fabricated the whole red line. There's literally zero evidence that it exists except as a conceit of his imagination.


You can only see the line if you use one of those plastic strip decoders from cereal boxes.
 
2013-09-03 11:57:51 AM

Autarky: So the "change" part of "hope and change" actually meant slightly changing the theater of war and expanding it.

/nobel peace prize winner


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-09-03 11:58:26 AM

InfrasonicTom: Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.

then what?


There's an Afterparty?
 
2013-09-03 11:59:31 AM
Dictators like to say stupid shiat like that, mostly for INTERNAL consumption.

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-09-03 12:00:20 PM

Fart_Machine: ferretman: You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.

Not according to the Air Force.


Yeah, and chemical weapons don't respond well to explosives to begin with. You can't just stick a balloon of sarin gas in a conventional warhead because the sarin won't become a cloud, but will be mostly destroyed. The same is true of dropping a bomb on chemical weapons stores. It might make for a complicated clean-up situation, but it isn't going to simply be the same as if those weapons were used.
 
2013-09-03 12:00:20 PM
Leave Syria alone.

They will nuke and poison themselves all on their own and then we can mach in unopposed, plunder their riches and give care to the survivors while looking like humanitarians.

Humanitarians that are making shiat tons of money.
 
2013-09-03 12:01:07 PM

Egoy3k: LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

It's hard to say how much understanding they do have.  On the one hand it's obvious that the full might of a modern superpower could swat them like a fly there are several reasons why they might not consider this a real threat.

1) Western nations are very squeamish about letting their soldiers do their jobs.  They impose ROE and missions that hamstring their armed forces and cause unnecessary casualties on their own soldiers.  We also tend to get upset about any of our soldiers who die in combat and are easily fatigued by this.

2) Recent history of mismanaged conflicts points to the fact the barely literate and poorly trained insurgents can inflict damage on a western military. Sure that damage is usually at the expense of many more insurgent lives but see point one about why it's worth it for their leaders.  When they lose soldier they are 'martyrs' for the cause and everyone is happy.  When a national guardsman with a wife and two kids gets killed we are demoralized.

3)It's possible that these leaders have sycophant military "advisers" who tell them that they can stand toe to toe with the west and they don't have enough outside experience to know that they are being lied to.

4)They really haven't seen the full capabilities of a fully modern military because none of the recent conflicts have warranted anything other than cold war era hardware.


THIS.  Why go into a fight blindfolded, with both arms and one leg tied behind your back?  It's a bullshiat strategy!
 
2013-09-03 12:01:49 PM
Good morning, Darling.
 
2013-09-03 12:02:43 PM
The chance for a regional war exists?
No shiat.
 
2013-09-03 12:03:23 PM

ferretman: foxyshadis: Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.

You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.


Hence why you bomb the crap out of the delivery systems instead.  They could still use mortar and old school open the can approach but beyond that have fun fighting the rebels w/o any fancy toys
 
2013-09-03 12:03:38 PM

snocone: Since those "sites" are schools, hospitals, public offices, as the guy on AGT sang, "Whatca gonna do?"


Build new ones.
 
2013-09-03 12:05:32 PM
This liberal war machine is going to be the end of us all!! Where are the anti war protests? I want to join. Obama lied, a soldier died! Kerri did it for OIL! It's all for Halliburton profits!
 
2013-09-03 12:05:51 PM

Cinaed: The chance for a regional war exists?
No shiat.


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-09-03 12:08:12 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk

"You know the difference between you and me Barack?"

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

"What?"

3agelnetwork.com

"I make the sunglasses look good."
 
2013-09-03 12:08:54 PM
i41.tinypic.com

Had to make him look more evil.
Still think we need to stay the hell out of there.
 
2013-09-03 12:10:45 PM
These guys know the US military, for all its bluff and bluster is really incapable of doing much after the enemy goes tits up. Its why we couldnt stabilize Iraq until we basically paid both sides off, its why Afghanistan is worse now than at any other point and why ever 'war' we've been in since Korea has either been extremely limited so that win conditions would be met regardless of what happened or simply made things worse.

We go into Syria and then what? Organized resistance collapses in a week, we pat our selves on the back and toss up the Mission Accomplished sign and then watch as a decade of guerrilla warfare erodes are stature and prestige even more before we call it quitsies?

Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.
 
2013-09-03 12:10:58 PM
Could we please just invade ourselves this time and win hearts and minds by building bridges and schools?
I really don't feel like spending our blood and treasure on anyone else, right now.
 
2013-09-03 12:11:49 PM
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. But inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
 
2013-09-03 12:12:43 PM

spamdog: So yeah, still no actual evidence that the Syrian regime launched that attack.

More evidence that the rebels actually did, as they are claiming:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE 94 409Z20130505

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
...
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added[.]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/20137920448105510.h tm l

Russia has presented evidence to the UN it says shows Syrian rebels attacked regime forces with sarin gas that was produced in "cottage industry" conditions.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russian experts had been to the scene of the attack at Khan al-Assal near Aleppo and gathered firsthand evidence.

He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile was "not a standard one for chemical use".

He added that, according to information gathered by Russia, production of the projectiles started in February by the "Basha'ir al-Nasr' brigade", which is affiliated with the Free Syrian Army.

From May and July, respectively.

Thanks for your time, continue with your idiotic posturing and dick waving that will certainly not come back to bite your children's generation in th ...


Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Obviously the whole situation is a clusterf*ck, but picking a side and only telling one side of the story is dishonest and cowardly.
 
2013-09-03 12:12:51 PM

Subtle_Canary: its why Afghanistan is worse now than at any other point


This does not sound, you know, correct.

Subtle_Canary: are stature


Nor is this, for other reasons.
 
2013-09-03 12:13:35 PM
I feel like this could all be resolved with a few well-timed jokes about the size of Assad's penis.
 
2013-09-03 12:14:28 PM
Goodbye, Darling.
 
2013-09-03 12:14:30 PM

Headso: I_C_Weener: Probably those WMDs from Iraq

I don't think nonexistent weapons can actually do anything in the real world.


I guess those Kurds all dropped dead on their own volition then. If chemical weapons are WMDs now then they were WMDs then. You farking partisan hypocrites are hilarious. Every one of you would be shiatting yourselves if a Republican was talking about attacking another country.
 
2013-09-03 12:15:24 PM

CheatCommando: Russia ain't going to war to defend Assad. They'll hamstring the Security Council and take other diplomatic measures, but the risk of actual military intervention is zero.


I think you are wrong. The chances of Russia intervening militarily in Syria are well above zero. After all, it's not like there hasn't been some precedent in the last 5 years of Russia sending military in to "aid" another country. Now of course, they will be extremely reluctant to engage ANY western military, but if the US is "entitled" to send military into a country that poses no immediate threat to the US or its allies, and which is not itself an ally of the US, then Russia certainly does as well. Especially if we act in spite of a complete lack of international consensus.

Russia has sold anti-aircraft systems, Helicopters, tanks, etc.
 
2013-09-03 12:15:28 PM

Headso: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:  Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out.  Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past.  So why start now?

The first sentence answers the question at the end, IMO he made that comment a year ago it's a more complicated situation on the ground now so to get out of attacking pass it on to congress and after they get off their vacations they can vote on it. The if they vote no it's on them and if they vote yes it's on them, politically it was a brilliant move.


No.  It's not brilliant.  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)
 
2013-09-03 12:17:16 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.


Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.
 
2013-09-03 12:18:04 PM

Subtle_Canary: Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.


I don't think Korea in 1950 was armed with technology substantially behind ours. In fact, they were a little ahead in some ways. (The Migs were a bit of a surprise.) North Vietnam, too, occasionally had some top-flight stuff, and the North Vietnamese were not like the tin-pot dictators we fought since - they really knew what they were doing.

So I'd really say we haven't fought a competent opponent since about 1973.

But part of it is that our morality has changed, starting around Vietnam. Being willing to level entire cities, by hand, if necessary, has not really been acceptable to the public's sensibilities for a long time, and looking back on historical partisan and insurgent situations that were successfully won by the occupier, the tactics used would be... ill-received today.
 
2013-09-03 12:19:36 PM
While chemical weapons are terrible and their use absolutely has to be punished to keep it from seeming acceptable, why exactly haven't we been public with our evidence of the chemical attack?

I would that that it would make people a lot more supportive of a war that we might get involved in, and possibly shame other nations into joining the cause. I could see why they'd be hesitant without seeing evidence given our recent history in the area.
 
rka
2013-09-03 12:23:15 PM

Infernalist: Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?


Yeah, because the rest of the world is just sitting on the fence waffling between following the US or Russia/China.

You know who would follow Russia/China? The same shiathole countries that have always followed Russia/China. The US acting as the world police isn't going to change that.

Hell, the world doesn't follow us NOW as they are so quick to point out day after day, so I'm not sure what going alone and bombing Syria is going to do for us in an effort to win hearts and minds over the likes of China and Russia. The US has been told time and time again that we aren't the world's leader. So maybe we should stop acting like we have some big crown to lose here.
 
2013-09-03 12:23:59 PM

NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.


That's also why the UN Weapons inspectors came in, looked around, took samples, and left...
 
2013-09-03 12:25:53 PM

vygramul: Subtle_Canary: Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.

I don't think Korea in 1950 was armed with technology substantially behind ours. In fact, they were a little ahead in some ways. (The Migs were a bit of a surprise.) North Vietnam, too, occasionally had some top-flight stuff, and the North Vietnamese were not like the tin-pot dictators we fought since - they really knew what they were doing.

So I'd really say we haven't fought a competent opponent since about 1973.

But part of it is that our morality has changed, starting around Vietnam. Being willing to level entire cities, by hand, if necessary, has not really been acceptable to the public's sensibilities for a long time, and looking back on historical partisan and insurgent situations that were successfully won by the occupier, the tactics used would be... ill-received today.


When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

We spent most of the Vietnam war NOT fighting against the NVA and when we DID finally go against them we spent most of our time trying not to. The VC was mostly eliminated after Tet, but the NVA never met us on the field with their mechanized forces. They played a light infantry warfare game with us til we left, and then waged conventional war against the South in 74 once we were gone. I see your point though.
 
2013-09-03 12:25:58 PM
We can't hate the blue eyed guy!
 
2013-09-03 12:26:10 PM
In 1997 there was a movie "Wag The Dog" with Dustin Hoffman, it was a story about  a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer who join efforts to "fabricate" a war.
Why am I thinking of this movie now?
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/
 
2013-09-03 12:27:57 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: No.  It's not brilliant.  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-03 12:29:41 PM

NutWrench: Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.


You know why organizations like the Red Cross / Red Crescent and Drs w/o Borders have access?

Because they don't do stuff like that. If they did, they would simply lose access.
 
2013-09-03 12:30:09 PM
Captain NoChin.
 
2013-09-03 12:30:11 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I feel like this could all be resolved with a few well-timed jokes about the size of Assad's penis.


Obama's dick is so big, it has its own dick, and even his dick's dick is bigger than Assad's dick.
 
2013-09-03 12:30:33 PM

NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.


They pretty much avoid getting involved in this sort of crap.
 
2013-09-03 12:32:32 PM
Even the Nazi's didnt fark with the Red Cross.
 
2013-09-03 12:32:35 PM
I remember when we elected this guy because he wasn't so eager to bomb brown people and make the whole world hate us for our meddling.
 
2013-09-03 12:35:52 PM

GibbyTheMole: Ah, remember the good ol' days when the American government wasn't chomping at the bit every couple of years to blow up some far-flung corner of the world?

Yeah, me neither.


It's champing at the bit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/champing+at+the+bit

But you have a point. Why do you think we're in this state of things? It's because we have a 24-hour news cycle now. This isn't the 1970s when we had TV news at noon and 6 o'clock, and that's all. Now news is entertainment, and wars are big business. They're also very distracting. They keep the proles engaged; Watching TV (and the ads that go with that), buying things (gotta stock up in case we're attacked!), talking about war (instead of what's really going on), cursing the politician of the hour (instead of recognizing the true powers behind the thrones), and generally being busy little people who don't challenge the real masters of this world and stay right where they want us.

It's all about keeping folks busy and entertained, and yes, watching people on the other side of the world die is entertainment for news junkies and armchair politicians. It's high entertainment that gets both sides riled up and takes all their attention.

The whole system is a show. Presidents don't make decisions; They announce decisions that have been made for them by people who are a hell of a lot more powerful and secretive than our politicians are. Washington DC is just another version of Hollywood. It's drama/scandal/power-monger theater for the masses. You're no better off with one party than another, since they're all just as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to what really happens in the world. It's just that they figured out how to play their role, take the money, and enjoy the good life in exchange for their job of distracting the rest of us.

Politics isn't a game. It's an improvised theatrical production.
 
2013-09-03 12:36:08 PM

paygun: I remember when we elected this guy because he wasn't so eager to bomb brown people and make the whole world hate us for our meddling.


He lied.
Surprise!
 
2013-09-03 12:37:32 PM

ZeroCorpse: GibbyTheMole: Ah, remember the good ol' days when the American government wasn't chomping at the bit every couple of years to blow up some far-flung corner of the world?

Yeah, me neither.

It's champing at the bit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/champing+at+the+bit

But you have a point. Why do you think we're in this state of things? It's because we have a 24-hour news cycle now. This isn't the 1970s when we had TV news at noon and 6 o'clock, and that's all. Now news is entertainment, and wars are big business. They're also very distracting. They keep the proles engaged; Watching TV (and the ads that go with that), buying things (gotta stock up in case we're attacked!), talking about war (instead of what's really going on), cursing the politician of the hour (instead of recognizing the true powers behind the thrones), and generally being busy little people who don't challenge the real masters of this world and stay right where they want us.

It's all about keeping folks busy and entertained, and yes, watching people on the other side of the world die is entertainment for news junkies and armchair politicians. It's high entertainment that gets both sides riled up and takes all their attention.

The whole system is a show. Presidents don't make decisions; They announce decisions that have been made for them by people who are a hell of a lot more powerful and secretive than our politicians are. Washington DC is just another version of Hollywood. It's drama/scandal/power-monger theater for the masses. You're no better off with one party than another, since they're all just as powerless as the rest of us when it comes to what really happens in the world. It's just that they figured out how to play their role, take the money, and enjoy the good life in exchange for their job of distracting the rest of us.

Politics isn't a game. It's an improvised theatrical production.


There it is.
 
2013-09-03 12:39:09 PM

Subtle_Canary:
When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.


It was a UN free for all against a heavily-armed country that had just rolled over its southern neighbor. But we still went in with Shermans against T-34/85s. Not exactly a dominating match-up on our part.

We spent most of the Vietnam war NOT fighting against the NVA and when we DID finally go against them we spent most of our time trying not to. The VC was mostly eliminated after Tet, but the NVA never met us on the field with their mechanized forces. They played a light infantry warfare game with us til we left, and then waged conventional war against the South in 74 once we were gone. I see your point though.

I wouldn't say the US military tried spending any time trying not to fight the NVA. But even in their light infantry fight, the North Vietnamese operationally quite good - something we generally haven't faced since. Even the Chinese got their asses handed to them a few years later. (The Chinese began thinking that this "radio" contraption might have its uses.)
 
2013-09-03 12:40:40 PM

LasersHurt: Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

Congrats on passing your first day of IR 101.

Ooh I love infrared


I assumed he was talking about Instrument rating and you're going to be a pilot!  Congratulations!
 
2013-09-03 12:40:52 PM
Remind me again why we are not treating elimination of all petroleum use like the top priority national defense item it actually is. If nobody used petroleum, these subhuman savages would run out of money to fund their little monkey-fights.
 
2013-09-03 12:41:10 PM
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE ISRAELS?
bensix.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 12:42:16 PM

netcentric: indarwinsshadow: LasersHurt: darwin

 It's Syria's civil war.   Do not meddle.


Originally I thought we had a chance, 2 years ago, to help out some good guys getting their shiat pushed in by brutal regime thugs.  But now, those good guys are mostly dead or fled, and it's a lot of bad guy vs bad guy at this point.  So, I'll just repost this:

i257.photobucket.com

/"surgical" strikes might still be an option IF Assad (or semi-rogue parts of his forces) did the attack
 
2013-09-03 12:42:19 PM

Silly_Sot: these subhuman savages would run out of money to fund their little monkey-fights.


LOLLERS!
 
2013-09-03 12:42:20 PM

SpectroBoy: NutWrench: Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

You know why organizations like the Red Cross / Red Crescent and Drs w/o Borders have access?

Because they don't do stuff like that. If they did, they would simply lose access.


Ding!

They even go so far as refusing military help in purely humanitarian missions. They only reluctantly use military aviation when they're desperate, and even then, they made the Dutch cover up their national markings.

They bend over backwards not to do this kinds of stuff precisely to maintain their access both here and in future crises.
 
2013-09-03 12:42:25 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.


Agreed, though sounding reasonable and being reasonable are different things.  Still, it's a point worth considering carefully.
 
2013-09-03 12:42:33 PM

snocone: NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

They pretty much avoid getting involved in this sort of crap.


Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.
 
2013-09-03 12:43:20 PM

Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.


Yeah.  You and me agreeing with Abe Vigoda's Ghost about something... what is Fark coming to?
 
2013-09-03 12:43:43 PM

SpectroBoy: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: No.  It's not brilliant.  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x682]


Typical of a farker who can't formulate a thought.  The fallback is always to post an ad-hom attack in the form of a cartoon in the hope that you'll look cool.  And you will ... To the rest of the retards.  Well done.  Now.  Did you have anything intelligent to add, Spectro-Boy?  Sorry.  Rhetorical question.
 
2013-09-03 12:43:44 PM
I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?
 
2013-09-03 12:45:38 PM

NutWrench: snocone: NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.

They pretty much avoid getting involved in this sort of crap.

Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.


Can't win that game, don't play.
They have a mission. Period.
 
2013-09-03 12:47:37 PM

NutWrench: Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.


The point is that they are diligent in NOT TAKING SIDES. Period. It's not about the ease with which they could provide evidence of one side, or the likelihood that anyone would disagree with the side they took. It's that they are allowed in because no matter what, they don't pick sides - they help the needy. That universal neutrality and the REPUTATION of universal neutrality is the primary advantage that they have.
 
2013-09-03 12:47:53 PM
If Assad wins, there will be massive death and destruction. Iran's primary national ally in the region will remain intact, and will be more likely than before to screw around with its neighbors. The US and Europe will look foolish, indecisive, and weak.

If the rebels win, there will be massive death and destruction as the fanatics wipe out every Alawite, Christian, and Shi'ite they can find (which may turn into yet another civil war). Al-Qaeda will likely gain a new regional stronghold, and even if they don't, it will likely be a place that Saudi Arabia grooms into being another backwards theocracy. The help offered by the West will soon be forgotten as fanatics take control.

Which do you prefer?
 
2013-09-03 12:48:22 PM

GrymRpr: HELP!

Assad suggested it was illogical to think his army would have employed chemical weapons on Aug. 21 in Damascus, where its own soldiers were stationed.

That being the case.... How many of Assad's troop's are listed as among the dead?
Or, were these little gems used:
[www.specwargear.com image 454x604]


congrats. A gas mask will do jack shiat against Nerve Agents
 
2013-09-03 12:48:59 PM

ciberido: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Agreed, though sounding reasonable and being reasonable are different things.  Still, it's a point worth considering carefully.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. We're arguing over whether or not we are justified in attacking Assad because of his use of chemical weapons, but the evidence they are citing that proves he used them is classified. If we do end up going to war, I'd at least like to see the evidence that it is somewhat just.
 
2013-09-03 12:49:23 PM

vygramul: Subtle_Canary:
When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

It was a UN free for all against a heavily-armed country that had just rolled over its southern neighbor. But we still went in with Shermans against T-34/85s. Not exactly a dominating match-up on our part.

We spent most of the Vietnam war NOT fighting against the NVA and when we DID finally go against them we spent most of our time trying not to. The VC was mostly eliminated after Tet, but the NVA never met us on the field with their mechanized forces. They played a light infantry warfare game with us til we left, and then waged conventional war against the South in 74 once we were gone. I see your point though.

I wouldn't say the US military tried spending any time trying not to fight the NVA. But even in their light infantry fight, the North Vietnamese operationally quite good - something we generally haven't faced since. Even the Chinese got their asses handed to them a few years later. (The Chinese began thinking that this "radio" contraption might have its uses.)


The Korean War is an odd case. immediately following WW2, the Soviets dumped as much aid/weaponry as they could in the North while the allies looked at the South and went 'meh'. When the North came rolling in, they actually had far less in numbers, military wise than the South but they did have aggressors initiative, organization and support. The numbers were even worse when the UN got involved. Basically UN forces had about a 3:1 manpower advantage on the ground and in the air it wasnt even worth a debate. NK was able to throw up some fancy MiG's but if they werent being flown by combat experienced Soviet 'advisors' they tended to only be worth so much burning metal.

and yeah, we had Sherman v T-34 fights. But there were a lot more Pershings and Pattons and in any event armored warfare wasnt that big a deal.

agree completely with the Vietnam angle though. The NVA had a VERY professional army, and they did pretty well going against our mostly draftee forces. If it wasnt for the incredible amount of aerial firepower we could bring to bear the NVA likely would have either driven us out of the country or forced us to resort to a nuclear option.
 
2013-09-03 12:51:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: NutWrench: Nobody's asking them to go out into the field, folks. They must have a couple hundred pounds of sarin-contaminated clothing that people were wearing when they were brought in. And nobody is going to argue that they're shilling for either the Syrian government or the rebels.

The point is that they are diligent in NOT TAKING SIDES. Period. It's not about the ease with which they could provide evidence of one side, or the likelihood that anyone would disagree with the side they took. It's that they are allowed in because no matter what, they don't pick sides - they help the needy. That universal neutrality and the REPUTATION of universal neutrality is the primary advantage that they have.


They don't take sides by not playing, the only answer. Whatever they report, if they did, would be turned, refined and utilized as a public opinion weapon.
Have you ever personally given information to the media? Did what came out resemble what you actually provided?
 
2013-09-03 12:52:35 PM

doomjesse: Infernalist: Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.


So in 2003 it was, "Waterboarding is just enhanced interrogation."
In 2011 we had, "Pepper spray is a food product, essentially."
Now in 2013 it's "Bullets kill people just as dead as chemical weapons."

I wonder what craven justification for acts of terror people will come up with next year.
 
2013-09-03 12:53:16 PM
After we're "done" there, do we sit and watch as bombs lob back and forth to and from Israel to Iran and Syria?
Can't we just put them on ignore?
 
2013-09-03 12:54:22 PM

seniorgato: SHOW US PROOF!

uh.  how about we don't care.  But crimes against humanity!
Nobody called the world police, so lets stay home.

If anything, the reliance on drones has made war so easy with so few casualties on our side, that we might get involved in order to justify a larger defense budget.


images.wikia.com
It's only a matter of time.
 
2013-09-03 12:56:06 PM

bdub77: you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.


Which is exactly why I'd like to see a beefed-up United Nations become the world's police.  It's painfully obvious that SOMEbody has to.  I'd really rather it not be the USA.
 
2013-09-03 12:57:18 PM

<tinfoil hat with conspiracy enhancements on>

The US caught Syria aiding or actually deploying insurgents into Iraq.


The US has been aiding anti-Assad elements in Syria as payback, successfully fomenting civil war both as payback and to keep him too busy to export trouble.


The aim of the US is for the civil war to continue, not for either side to win.


The Arab-spring uprisings have at least some (possibly loose) leadership connections. The US had a finger in that pot.


The US called in some favors for help tying Syria up. This may have involved connections in Libya.


The US bombings in Libya were payback for assistance to the US, possibly in Syria.


The later consulate attack in Libya was either payback for a US double-cross or an insurgent faction unhappy with the others for cooperating with the US. The US officials with knowledge tried to distance the US from it, 'sacrificed' US officials there and downplayed the event hoping to keep the other plotting involving Libya secret.

The US intended chemical weapon use in Syria as an excuse to assist rebels in Syria with some strategic bombing knowing that the damage was likely to hurt Assad but not help the rebels against him much. If the Russians have anything 'interesting' in Syria it would of course be collateral damage.

The US had some advance knowledge of the CW attack. Whether the US knew and didn't warn, or were behind it as a false flag operation the US hoped to frame Assad personally for the attack. Either the sigint frame job went awry or the real persons/group who used the CW is known and the trail doesn't lead to Assad. This failure is the reason there is no support for an attack on Syria. It's possible the US does have proof it can't use because it would compromise excellent intelligence sources/methods that are more valuable than this event.

</tinfoil hat>


This is a fun tempest to speculate about. There is definitely more under the surface here.

 
2013-09-03 12:57:30 PM

Carth: Assad is likely a mass murdering war criminal but I don't think he is engaging in genocide. He seems to be killing anyone who disagree with him not targeting people of a specific race, religion or nationality.


Not really even that. At the moment, his forces are basically ignoring the Kurds (and vice-versa). He's shooting at anyone who shoots back, basically.
 
2013-09-03 12:58:07 PM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost:

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

That's fine, that's a reasonable position. I can see the motive for the rebels, though I'm not sure whether they'd have the ability. When someone starts painting Assad as the reasonable one in all this though, either because they're rabidly anti-Obama, or rabidly opposed to military action, they just look like an ass clown.
 
2013-09-03 12:58:19 PM

snocone: Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.

Umm, I see your problem,,,
"eliminate"
Yea, about how to do that,,,


^^^
Yeah, "surgical" elimination is a major issue with chem and Bio weapons.

You're looking at needing to use thermobarics to incinerate the agents, or you're just creating the chemical attack you wanted to avoid when containment is lost.

And those are nasty things in their own right
 
2013-09-03 01:01:35 PM

paygun: I remember when we elected this guy because he wasn't so eager to bomb brown people and make the whole world hate us for our meddling.


and he hasn't been. It took the use of chemical weapons on women and children after 2 1/2 years of constant warfare, to bring him to this. He does not engage our soldiers unless absolutely necessary.

but go on, explain to me how he's worse than hitler and Bush
 
2013-09-03 01:02:16 PM

ciberido: doomjesse: Infernalist: Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

So in 2003 it was, "Waterboarding is just enhanced interrogation."
In 2011 we had, "Pepper spray is a food product, essentially."
Now in 2013 it's "Bullets kill people just as dead as chemical weapons."

I wonder what craven justification for acts of terror people will come up with next year.


I always felt stoning never got the attention it deserved.
 
2013-09-03 01:04:02 PM
www.charlesaddams.com
 
2013-09-03 01:04:35 PM

Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?


The differences?

Iraq was a totally contained entity. He was a secular strong man running a country that basically kept fundamental nutty islamism in check. With Saddam in place you knew where your terrorist where coming from and where they WERENT going to be. Basically, Iraq was a big farking 'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' as far as al qaeda flavored nuttiness went. Iran didnt have as strong a hand because in the back of their mind, Iraq could STILL be a threat.

Then we knock Mr Mustache off his throne, opened up the country for every religious nutter with an AK and now the whole country is a free flow zone for jihadist and weaponry.


Syria is a country currently involved in a civil war that has potential for spilling over borders. If Iraq war 2 hadnt happened Syria wouldnt be happening but hey, hindsight and all. So we either help 'support' (by not getting involved)  another secular strongman who represents stability (if even it is noxious stability) or help the jihadis who hate him topple him so that the warming embrace of militant Islamism can spread ever farther.

Basically its a question of, whats better in the long run. In the long run, keeping Iraq as a nutball buffer zone was ideal. we hooched that one though. So whats the ideal scenario for Syria? keeping a country in perpetual war so that no single bloc takes over and exerts influence (Iran). Or picking the side of the people who represent the ideas of goons we've been at war with for over a decade because Al-assad is an asshole?
 
2013-09-03 01:06:57 PM
BOMB THEM FOR JESUS!!!

or the profit, but never for the Prophet.
 
2013-09-03 01:08:01 PM
Boner supports striking Syria. Sorry pacifists, you lose.
 
2013-09-03 01:08:12 PM

fluffy2097: Leave Syria alone.

They will nuke and poison themselves all on their own and then we can mach in unopposed, plunder their riches and give care to the survivors while looking like humanitarians.

Humanitarians that are making shiat tons of money.


That is a much better strategy.
 
2013-09-03 01:08:24 PM
snocone:That is some right fine imagination you got there, boy.
You sound like exactly like what we have come to expect from years of government training.


Infernalist: Anyone who doubts me on the effects and abilities of Chemical Weapons is free to read up on it themselves.

snocone disputes the existence of Global Warming and rape.  I'm not surprised to find he's "skeptical" about chemical weapons as well.
 
2013-09-03 01:08:49 PM
USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 800 million. Maybe we should use the Visa for this war?
 
2013-09-03 01:09:10 PM

Thingster: snocone: Kit Fister: dumbobruni: why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Okay, fine. UN inspectors find that such weapons were used, we send in the Navy SEALs in surgical strikes to locate and eliminate the stockpiles, and get the hell out.

Umm, I see your problem,,,
"eliminate"
Yea, about how to do that,,,

^^^
Yeah, "surgical" elimination is a major issue with chem and Bio weapons.

You're looking at needing to use thermobarics to incinerate the agents, or you're just creating the chemical attack you wanted to avoid when containment is lost.

And those are nasty things in their own right


Yup, we are going to have to use nukes, for their own good.
 
2013-09-03 01:10:50 PM

LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.


Futilely attempting to establish a 'red line', if you will?
 
2013-09-03 01:11:18 PM
I am not a fan of Assad, but a HUGE fan of Morrssy!

img0.etsystatic.com
 
2013-09-03 01:11:46 PM

that1guy77: Old farking news. It was obvious he wasn't going to go out like a biatch.


Yeah, well, neither was this guy:

www.morethings.com

And yet, he got farked.  Like a biatch.
 
2013-09-03 01:12:54 PM
Considering that the CIA was so concerned with Indonesia's Sukarno's `non-aligned' status that they created a "Health Alteration Committee" to study-out how to best elevate his status to that of non-entity, I could imagine some `cut-out' retiring family members/Colleagues of Assad (personal message - not a collateralizing issue).  Maybe some perverse body-double porn with the `Assad' being reamed by a `Putin' (a`Sukarno' was `exposed' shtupping  a `bleached Natasha') to shame him before the chadorettes in the souk congregation - well, could be `fun' virally...

Not a CSB (just for some resonation & not comic relief):

In the early months of 1958, rebellion began to break out in one part of the Indonesian island chain, then another. CIA pilots took to the air to carry out bombing and strafing missions in support of the rebels. In Washington, Col. Alex Kawilarung, the Indonesian military attaché, was persuaded by the Agency to "defect". He soon showed up in Indonesia to take charge of the rebel forces. Yet, as the fighting dragged on into spring, the insurgents proved unable to win decisive victories or take the offensive, although the CIA bombing raids were taking their toll. Sukarno later claimed that on a Sunday morning in April, a plane bombed a ship in the harbor of the island of Ambon - all those aboard losing their lives - as well as hitting a church, which demolished the building and killed everyone inside. He stated that 700 casualties had resulted from this single run.

On 15 May, a CIA plane bombed the Ambon marketplace, killing a large number of civilians on their way to church on Ascension Thursday. The Indonesian government had to act to suppress public demonstrations
http://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/indonesi a

If U.S. citizens and their reps spent as much time and effort isolating the Republic `Energetically' as they have/do maintaining/cultivating the `risk-on' bullshiat that purports to pass for `policy' & `free market' we'd have fixed our little problem after the `73 oil embargo, Had we done so, we'd just send humanitarian aid following the chemical/nuclear exchanges between the local competitors for `truth?'  And drive on unvexed...
 
2013-09-03 01:13:47 PM
Subtle_Canary:

It wasn't just our air, it was also our artillery in Vietnam.

Interesting bit: when I worked in DoD, I had a colleague (a native Chinese speaker) who said that the Chinese documents indicated that in Korea, they assumed we were tied to the roads because we were mechanized, and trucks were too valuable to us to leave behind in a retreat. They thought that they'd be able to encircle the entirety of UN forces, including the US, by taking the faster overland routes. They were surprised that we were willing to flee overland and abandon such rare equipment.

Apparently, they didn't appreciate just how disposable we viewed our mechanized assets to be.
 
2013-09-03 01:14:47 PM

barkingfarking: USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 800 million. Maybe we should use the Visa for this war?


After this war, USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 1 billion, 800 million.
 
2013-09-03 01:17:04 PM

Subtle_Canary: When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.


"Drove us out"?
 
2013-09-03 01:17:45 PM

The Numbers: LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

Futilely attempting to establish a 'red line', if you will?


At least we have a history and the hardware to back it up, and the good sense to be vague. There's a gulf between their statements and the "red line" comment in terms of stated intent and capacity to follow through.
 
2013-09-03 01:21:17 PM
I'm not sure if I should take his line about the US not having any proof about his regime launching the CWs as a good thing or not. Does this mean that they have proof that the rebels launched the attack? Or is he just hoping that by never coming out and saying "we did it" then it MUST mean that the CWs launched out of the blue and no reason can be found? Because someone pulled that trigger. The gun is already smoking, the only question is who's finger was on the trigger? Assad's, or the rebels? It can't be nobodies fault. Either one of his people did it or one of the rebels did it. Wouldn't you think he would be just as interested in finding the truth as the US is? I mean he said it himself, his own military got gassed, too. If someone acted alone, why not find them? Find out who told them to if they didn't act alone? Gimme a farking break here! If a lone person in the military launched a CW attack that harmed not only civilians, but military personnel, in the continental US, we would have known who was fully responsible by the end of the week. What makes them not want to find out? I'm not saying Assad is "guilty" of this, but it sure as fark looks like he is from where I'm sitting.
 
2013-09-03 01:22:35 PM

Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?


In a nutshell:  Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences.  He painted himself into a corner right there.  Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens.  But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress.  The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved.   Meanwhile?  He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria.  In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this.  Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences.  This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all.  But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.
 
2013-09-03 01:23:01 PM

vygramul: Subtle_Canary:

It wasn't just our air, it was also our artillery in Vietnam.

Interesting bit: when I worked in DoD, I had a colleague (a native Chinese speaker) who said that the Chinese documents indicated that in Korea, they assumed we were tied to the roads because we were mechanized, and trucks were too valuable to us to leave behind in a retreat. They thought that they'd be able to encircle the entirety of UN forces, including the US, by taking the faster overland routes. They were surprised that we were willing to flee overland and abandon such rare equipment.

Apparently, they didn't appreciate just how disposable we viewed our mechanized assets to be.


Most countries have made that mistake against the US. German POWs knew Germany was screwed when they got to Cleveland, and realized fighting both Japan and Germany hadn't affected the American home front at all.
 
2013-09-03 01:26:07 PM

Fart_Machine: ferretman: You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.

Not according to the Air Force.


Cool...did not know that...thanks.
 
2013-09-03 01:26:44 PM

vygramul: barkingfarking: USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 800 million. Maybe we should use the Visa for this war?

After this war, USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 1 billion, 800 million.


That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse.  You are underestimating the situation.
 
2013-09-03 01:30:45 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell:  Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences.  He painted himself into a corner right there.  Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens.  But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress.  The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved.   Meanwhile?  He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria.  In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this.  Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences.  This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all.  But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.


3/10.

Starts out ok but deteriorates into rambling derpage. Try being a bit more concise in future.
 
2013-09-03 01:37:42 PM
skozlaw: I hate to inform you, Iraq war 1 (Desert Storm) was the Chemical Boogaloo.  This would be Iraq war 3: Chemicals Reloaded (Dictator's Cut Edition).
 
2013-09-03 01:38:32 PM
AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat.  Now suck it!  Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment!  Isn't it humiliating?
 
2013-09-03 01:42:42 PM

optional: If Assad wins, there will be massive death and destruction. Iran's primary national ally in the region will remain intact, and will be more likely than before to screw around with its neighbors. The US and Europe will look foolish, indecisive, and weak.

If the rebels win, there will be massive death and destruction as the fanatics wipe out every Alawite, Christian, and Shi'ite they can find (which may turn into yet another civil war). Al-Qaeda will likely gain a new regional stronghold, and even if they don't, it will likely be a place that Saudi Arabia grooms into being another backwards theocracy. The help offered by the West will soon be forgotten as fanatics take control.

Which do you prefer?


Which option results in the greater body-count?

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-09-03 01:44:43 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell:  Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences.  He painted himself into a corner right there.  Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens.  But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress.  The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved.   Meanwhile?  He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria.  In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this.  Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences.  This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all.  But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.


Keeping the ball in the air as long as possible keeps pressure on the Syrian military to split with the regime.  Kicking it to congress is a way to do that.  Or it could be the monopoly game thing, sure.
 
2013-09-03 01:45:49 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.


Same here. If he weren't in the middle of a civil war, I'd be pretty impressed. The ME  is an explosion waiting to happen, and we  do need proof that it was Assad himself who used weapons (seriously. UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it).

However, when a civil war arises, I tend to think whoever's in charge is a) an asshole, b) incompetent, or c) both. So there's that.
 
2013-09-03 01:47:18 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: barkingfarking: USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 800 million. Maybe we should use the Visa for this war?

After this war, USA DEBT: 16 trillion, 1 billion, 800 million.

That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse.  You are underestimating the situation.


Nope. I have history on my side.
 
2013-09-03 01:47:38 PM

Billy Bathsalt: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell:  Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences.  He painted himself into a corner right there.  Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens.  But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress.  The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved.   Meanwhile?  He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria.  In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this.  Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences.  This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all.  But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.

Keeping the ball in the air as long as possible keeps pressure on the Syrian military to split with the regime.  Kicking it to congress is a way to do that.  Or it could be the monopoly game thing, sure.


Or keeping the ball in the air gives everyone time to get the fark out of dodge or bunker down, lock and load and hide a few unmentionables.
 
2013-09-03 01:47:44 PM

dumbobruni: n the first Iraq war, Saddam hit Israel with over 40 missiles. WW3 didn't start.


That's because GHW Bush had strong influence over them and talked them out of joining in lest the other Arab nations pull out of the coalition and he promised that he would punish Saddam for it (road of death anyone?). Obama definitely doesn't have the same amount of pull with Israel as he did and unless he offers to strike back at anyone who attacks them there's no possible way that they won't do it themselves and there's some doubt that they would listen or trust Obama to follow through anyway. If anyone lobs anything at Israel I wouldn't expect the same results as 1991.

As Obama himself might put it, the calculus has changed.
 
2013-09-03 01:49:36 PM
Oh, my.  Is um's widdle pwesident about to make an international bwunder?  Yes um is!  Yes he is!  So sad for baby.
 
2013-09-03 01:50:55 PM

vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: 

That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse.  You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.


Ahhh, that's right.  Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.
 
2013-09-03 01:53:26 PM

ciberido: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat.  Now suck it!  Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment!  Isn't it humiliating?


"Now suck it!"

And there we have another well informed ad-hom attack from a typical Farker who wants something for nothing, believes it's actually possible, and projects his miserable life onto others.   Expertly done!
 
2013-09-03 01:57:20 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:
That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse.  You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.

Ahhh, that's right.  Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.


Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.
 
2013-09-03 02:05:35 PM

PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it


UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.
 
2013-09-03 02:06:17 PM

vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:
That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse.  You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.

Ahhh, that's right.  Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.

Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.


Can't help but notice how nobody here on fark will acknowledge that Obama stepped on his own dick.  Ya'll are about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox.  Just so ya know.
 
2013-09-03 02:08:59 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:
That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse.  You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.

Ahhh, that's right.  Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.

Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Can't help but notice how nobody here on fark will acknowledge that Obama stepped on his own dick.  Ya'll are about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox.  Just so ya know.


CaH and I have been discussing this in a non-partisan manner. Our conversation is not interested in the petty political points.
 
2013-09-03 02:11:52 PM

Radioactive Ass: dumbobruni: n the first Iraq war, Saddam hit Israel with over 40 missiles. WW3 didn't start.

That's because GHW Bush had strong influence over them and talked them out of joining in lest the other Arab nations pull out of the coalition and he promised that he would punish Saddam for it (road of death anyone?). Obama definitely doesn't have the same amount of pull with Israel as he did and unless he offers to strike back at anyone who attacks them there's no possible way that they won't do it themselves and there's some doubt that they would listen or trust Obama to follow through anyway. If anyone lobs anything at Israel I wouldn't expect the same results as 1991.

As Obama himself might put it, the calculus has changed.


I think that Saudi Arabia would also be a target, possibly from Iran.

The first US targets in Syria would be air defenses and missile batteries.  At that point it becomes a 'use it or lose' it situation for Syria.  Why not bring some pain on, Israel, your mortal enemy?  It's less than 150 miles from Damascus to Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah has to also think it would be a target, if only from an 'oops' missile meant for Syria.  They would love nothing more than rain some missiles on Israel.
 
2013-09-03 02:14:16 PM
Anyone watching Chemical Achmed on CNN? Christiane Amanpour is jousting with him.
 
2013-09-03 02:17:49 PM
I just hope some guy named Archy Duke doens't shoot an ostrich because he's hungry.
 
2013-09-03 02:20:21 PM
"As for his response to a potential military strike on his country, Assad compared the Middle East to a "powder keg" and told Le Figaro that a first strike from the West could prompt responses from other corners of the region." - FTA

The Middle East, we all know and love, is a "powder keg"?  Say it ain't so.
 
2013-09-03 02:22:18 PM

TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.


The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...
 
2013-09-03 02:23:52 PM

PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...


And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?
 
2013-09-03 02:27:37 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I think that Saudi Arabia would also be a target, possibly from Iran.

The first US targets in Syria would be air defenses and missile batteries. At that point it becomes a 'use it or lose' it situation for Syria. Why not bring some pain on, Israel, your mortal enemy? It's less than 150 miles from Damascus to Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah has to also think it would be a target, if only from an 'oops' missile meant for Syria. They would love nothing more than rain some missiles on Israel.


Exactly. And Israel has nukes. If Syria starts dropping gas on them they will respond with their own WMD. If you are willing to assume that Syria would gas their own people then it's not a stretch at all to assume that they would use them against their perceived enemies as well when their back is up against the wall.
 
2013-09-03 02:30:55 PM
He looks a lot more like Sinestro from Green Lantern, to me...
 
2013-09-03 02:38:27 PM

vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?


Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing?  Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.
 
2013-09-03 02:41:35 PM
vygramul:  Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Yugoslavia was a NATO operation and Russia was still recovering from Soviet collapse.  Not the same situation.

Syria is a long-time ally of Russia and is extremely important to their energy interests in the ME.  There is an old saying that "he who controls Syria controls the world".  Obviously not as true today but still underscores their strategic importance.  Russia also has a naval base in Syria.

Also, Syria and Iran are Russia's last satellite countries in the region.  And Iran has watched itself slowly be surrounded by US military over the past 10+ years.  If Syria falls, Iran would be completely isolated.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran could be hollow but I sincerely doubt it.
 
2013-09-03 02:42:19 PM

monoski: You know who else is pretty good at killing civilians?


Time, it gets us all.
 
2013-09-03 02:42:39 PM
Ass-ad.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-03 02:43:06 PM

EvilEgg: Fortunately chemical weapons don't hurt oil.  Which is the only part about that region we like.


It's the only part of the region worth caring about...
 
2013-09-03 02:47:19 PM
All this just so Obama can institute martial law and stay in office indefinitely.
 
2013-09-03 02:52:25 PM

PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing?  Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.


If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.
 
2013-09-03 02:54:42 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul:  Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Yugoslavia was a NATO operation and Russia was still recovering from Soviet collapse.  Not the same situation.

Syria is a long-time ally of Russia and is extremely important to their energy interests in the ME.  There is an old saying that "he who controls Syria controls the world".  Obviously not as true today but still underscores their strategic importance.  Russia also has a naval base in Syria.

Also, Syria and Iran are Russia's last satellite countries in the region.  And Iran has watched itself slowly be surrounded by US military over the past 10+ years.  If Syria falls, Iran would be completely isolated.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran could be hollow but I sincerely doubt it.


Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.
 
2013-09-03 02:58:10 PM

This text is now purple: Subtle_Canary: When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

"Drove us out"?


Yes, drove us out. As in we had invaded and conquered North Korea, a separate country, and then got pushed back to the pre war DMZ line. You will notice that there are no US installations north of the 38th Parallel.


ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2013-09-03 03:07:42 PM

vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing?  Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.


So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:58 PM

dionysusaur: Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?


Becayue it would be the epitome of futility. Once new lines have been drawn they'll keep on fighting based on those ethnic/sectarian lines. Add the fact that they'll all want the resources of the region, both natural and infrastructure, and you'll see that all it would accomplish is the addition of a few additional reasons to hate each other.

I'd also love to see someone segregate the city population.
 
2013-09-03 03:11:59 PM
Youvygramul:  Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.


Actually you're right.  I did overstate by calling Iran a Russian satellite, although the Soviet Union has supported Iran in the past.  Russian relations with Iran are actually pretty good at the moment:   Why Russia stays loyal to Iran despite tensions

Regardless, Iran has a strategic alliance with Syria and will almost assuredly be drawn into any conflict with Syria.
 
2013-09-03 03:14:14 PM

DerAppie: dionysusaur: Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?

Becayue it would be the epitome of futility. Once new lines have been drawn they'll keep on fighting based on those ethnic/sectarian lines. Add the fact that they'll all want the resources of the region, both natural and infrastructure, and you'll see that all it would accomplish is the addition of a few additional reasons to hate each other.

I'd also love to see someone segregate the city population.


nah, draw up new map along ethnic lines, support the Kurds, and when they win, jack them for whats left. The Kurds will be too exhausted as a people to resist and nobody else in the region will have enough power anymore to stop you.


Now THAT'S how you imperialism!
 
2013-09-03 03:16:45 PM

PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing?  Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.


We actually don't. To create such a court, everyone would have to give up some amount of sovereignty. You wouldn't get that past Teahaddists here, much less in Iran, China, and Russia.
 
2013-09-03 03:17:40 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Youvygramul:  Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.

Actually you're right.  I did overstate by calling Iran a Russian satellite, although the Soviet Union has supported Iran in the past.  Russian relations with Iran are actually pretty good at the moment:   Why Russia stays loyal to Iran despite tensions

Regardless, Iran has a strategic alliance with Syria and will almost assuredly be drawn into any conflict with Syria.


Want to put money on it? You're so certain, you should be willing to give me odds.
 
2013-09-03 03:20:38 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: ciberido: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat.  Now suck it!  Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment!  Isn't it humiliating?

"Now suck it!"

And there we have another well informed ad-hom attack from a typical Farker who wants something for nothing, believes it's actually possible, and projects his miserable life onto others.   Expertly done!


I'll take ad-hominem attacks over pathetic strawmen like "wants something for nothing," although I think "projects his miserable life onto others" just might count as an ad-hominem in its own right.

Enjoy your healthcare.
 
2013-09-03 03:23:51 PM

Mouser: [lh3.googleusercontent.com image 410x512]


I keep trying to tell you folks, I don't want your damn lemons!
 
2013-09-03 03:24:44 PM

Marine1: DrunkBastard: Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.


Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91.  But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...
 
2013-09-03 03:27:11 PM

bigstoopidbruce: Oh, my.  Is um's widdle pwesident about to make an international bwunder?  Yes um is!  Yes he is!  So sad for baby.


Your mockery would be more effective if it was a little more clear about who, exactly, you're trying to mock.  Obama?  The entire USA?  People who voted for Obama?
 
2013-09-03 03:30:31 PM

Maul555: Marine1: DrunkBastard: Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91.  But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...


We couldn't have done that in '91. Most of the support from many of the countries, especially Saudi Arabia, from where we attacked, was predicated on us NOT toppling Saddam. No Saudi help, and you're talking a very, very narrow invasion front.
 
2013-09-03 03:39:23 PM

Somacandra: Assad has always been a very creepy looking man. Very creepy. Its as if some twisted deity decided to make a face that looks like the very incarnation of amorality.


He looks like a tall, Arab Heinrich Himmler.
 
2013-09-03 03:44:54 PM

vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing?  Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.

We actually don't. To create such a court, everyone would have to give up some amount of sovereignty. You wouldn't get that past Teahaddists here, much less in Iran, China, and Russia.


There are people (both inside and outside the USA) who would like to see it happen.  But that's very close to postnationalism, at which American exceptionalism is bitterly at odds.

I think I already said earlier in this thread I would like to see a UN with a military force strong enough to basically go in and overthrow an entire country.  But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night.  Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile.  Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater.  Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided.  A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning.  She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.
 
2013-09-03 03:55:20 PM

ciberido: vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job.  Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing?  Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.

We actually don't. To create such a court, everyone would have to give up some amount of sovereignty. You wouldn't get that past Teahaddists here, much less in Iran, China, and Russia.

There are people (both inside and outside the USA) who would like to see it happen.  But that's very close to postnationalism, at which American exceptionalism is bitterly at odds.

I think I already said earlier in this thread I would like to see a UN with a military force strong enough to basically go in and overthrow an entire country.  But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night.  Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile.  Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater.  ...


ciberido: There are people (both inside and outside the USA) who would like to see it happen.  But that's very close to postnationalism, at which American exceptionalism is bitterly at odds.

I think I already said earlier in this thread I would like to see a UN with a military force strong enough to basically go in and overthrow an entire country.  But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night.  Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile.  Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater.  Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided.  A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning.  She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.


That is a not-stupid analogy. Perhaps not perfectly describing the situation, but clear, concise, and fairly close. Thanks!
 
2013-09-03 04:01:27 PM

vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Youvygramul:  Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.

Actually you're right.  I did overstate by calling Iran a Russian satellite, although the Soviet Union has supported Iran in the past.  Russian relations with Iran are actually pretty good at the moment:   Why Russia stays loyal to Iran despite tensions

Regardless, Iran has a strategic alliance with Syria and will almost assuredly be drawn into any conflict with Syria.

Want to put money on it? You're so certain, you should be willing to give me odds.


I'm not a bookie and it's poor taste to bet on other people's lives.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas takes your action.

But from what I've read and heard there is a 50/50 chance of the US being stupid and getting further involved.
 
2013-09-03 04:05:15 PM

durbnpoisn: No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.


I don't think the issue is as much about whether or not the result of the weapons is death, and no one is saying that machine guns don't hurt horrifically when used to blow people to pieces, but rather that chemical weapons would become out of control if they were ever legalized because a remorseless leader could order their mass production and annihilate most organisms in a city within hours. Were there any innocent civilians in there? Ah too bad, Remorseless Leader doesn't give a shiat because his enemies are dead too and hey, less whiny mouths to feed once this fighting is done.
 
2013-09-03 04:05:57 PM

ciberido: The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided. A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning. She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.



OOOH! I LOVE REDUCTIVE STORY HOUR! TELL ME ANOTHER ONE! PLEASE?
 
2013-09-03 04:17:12 PM

bdub77: you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?


Easy! Think of who assassinations target, now think of who makes the rules.
 
2013-09-03 04:23:44 PM

griffer: ciberido: The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided. A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning. She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.


OOOH! I LOVE REDUCTIVE STORY HOUR! TELL ME ANOTHER ONE! PLEASE?


If it helps any I'll admit I could be totally wrong.  Would someone like to offer a different analogy?
 
2013-09-03 04:23:46 PM

durbnpoisn: Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell. And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.


The issue is not about lethality. It is about the indiscriminate and uncontrolled nature of the weapon. Gas is a poor weapon against the military as WWI showed. It is unfocused, and a change in the wind can render it ineffective or even damage your own troops.

The problem is that nerve gas is a weapon guaranteed to kill civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers with no ability to even try to prevent civilian death. Particularly when deployed in an urban center. It has no AIM. It is a wide area weapon that cannot be focused or targeted. It stays on clothing and can kill up to 30 minutes later. It can take up to 18 hours to die from it.

And then add to that the genuinely horrific, agonizing, torturously painful way is causes those deaths and you have a class of weapons that are qualitatively different from bullets and bombs.

Without reference to whether there is justification for action in Syria, I think that anyone who looks at it objectively can agree that while all death is bad, dying from a bomb blast or a bullet is not the same thing as slowly asphyxiating as your body spasms uncontrollably.

And that is why all weapons of war are bad, but everyone agrees that some are unacceptably worse.
 
2013-09-03 04:48:48 PM
With no proof I just have to go by which leader is more trustworthy.

I don't know Assad from the next guy but I know of times Obama has lied so....

I think I have to trust Assad on this one.
 
2013-09-03 04:57:04 PM

BojanglesPaladin: durbnpoisn: Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell. And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

The issue is not about lethality. It is about the indiscriminate and uncontrolled nature of the weapon. Gas is a poor weapon against the military as WWI showed. It is unfocused, and a change in the wind can render it ineffective or even damage your own troops.

The problem is that nerve gas is a weapon guaranteed to kill civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers with no ability to even try to prevent civilian death. Particularly when deployed in an urban center. It has no AIM. It is a wide area weapon that cannot be focused or targeted. It stays on clothing and can kill up to 30 minutes later. It can take up to 18 hours to die from it.

And then add to that the genuinely horrific, agonizing, torturously painful way is causes those deaths and you have a class of weapons that are qualitatively different from bullets and bombs.

Without reference to whether there is justification for action in Syria, I think that anyone who looks at it objectively can agree that while all death is bad, dying from a bomb blast or a bullet is not the same thing as slowly asphyxiating as your body spasms uncontrollably.

And that is why all weapons of war are bad, but everyone agrees that some are unacceptably worse.

people think of NBC weapons in the wrong way. Their primary job isnt to 'kill troops', although they do a good job of it. They really are 'area denial weapons'. Its a great thing to use when there is a piece of real estate that has enemies on it that you cant control yourself but is damaging for your forces if controlled by an enemy. So you drop some sarin on it and make sure NOBODY has it. Its the ultimate troll weapon. covering in area in nerve gas is basically saying 'well screw you guys im going home'.

Good example? You have limited personnel and numerous enemies. Your forces can either
A- attempt to control a large swathe of frontline and risk being spread thin and giving the enemy multiple points for exploitation.
or
B- VX the ever living shiat out of a particular zone and concentrate your forces in the only area the enemy can attack you or get support from.

Do we even still maintain a chemical capability or has the US gone all chips in on nuclear devices?
 
2013-09-03 05:10:06 PM

Subtle_Canary: So you drop some sarin on it and make sure NOBODY has it. Its the ultimate troll weapon. covering in area in nerve gas is basically saying 'well screw you guys im going home'.


Umm. Yeah. What you describe is generally considered a war crime, even if done with conventional weaponry. Also, the nerve gases are only viable and lethal for a day or so when released into the atmosphere. Less depending on conditions.

And when that area is populated by living people, you are killing thousands of people in a particularly nasty and gruesome way for little military advantage. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because if the torturous and agonizing way in which it kills. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because it is so indiscriminate, and so likely to result in the death of nearby civilians.
 
2013-09-03 05:25:15 PM
Something something something great blunders something something land war in asia.
 
2013-09-03 05:29:28 PM

vygramul: Maul555: Marine1: DrunkBastard: Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91.  But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...

We couldn't have done that in '91. Most of the support from many of the countries, especially Saudi Arabia, from where we attacked, was predicated on us NOT toppling Saddam. No Saudi help, and you're talking a very, very narrow invasion front.


You are right, but I meant Should Have, in a Captain Hindsight 20/20 vision kind of way...

static.comicvine.com
 
2013-09-03 05:59:37 PM

Somacandra: Assad has always been a very creepy looking man. Very creepy. Its as if some twisted deity decided to make a face that looks like the very incarnation of amorality.


anh.24h.com.vn

Look at that handsome smiling face!  He must be really moral!
 
2013-09-03 06:10:24 PM

Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?


It's that swarthy, hook-nosed look.
 
2013-09-03 06:43:44 PM

Maul555: vygramul: Maul555: Marine1: DrunkBastard: Marine1: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284]

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run.  I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91.  But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...

We couldn't have done that in '91. Most of the support from many of the countries, especially Saudi Arabia, from where we attacked, was predicated on us NOT toppling Saddam. No Saudi help, and you're talking a very, very narrow invasion front.

You are right, but I meant Should Have, in a Captain Hindsight 20/20 vision kind of way...

[static.comicvine.com image 400x225]


So, really, Captain Hindsight should point out that it's the Saudis and other Arab states who should have changed. Had they wanted Saddam removed, we probably would have done it.
 
2013-09-03 06:46:39 PM

scubamage: Something something something great blunders something something land war in asia.


I clearly cannot choose the chemical weapons in front of me!
 
2013-09-03 06:48:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Subtle_Canary: So you drop some sarin on it and make sure NOBODY has it. Its the ultimate troll weapon. covering in area in nerve gas is basically saying 'well screw you guys im going home'.

Umm. Yeah. What you describe is generally considered a war crime, even if done with conventional weaponry. Also, the nerve gases are only viable and lethal for a day or so when released into the atmosphere. Less depending on conditions.

And when that area is populated by living people, you are killing thousands of people in a particularly nasty and gruesome way for little military advantage. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because if the torturous and agonizing way in which it kills. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because it is so indiscriminate, and so likely to result in the death of nearby civilians.


psht, warcrime. How many US politicians went to jail for Operation Ranch Hand? Yeah i thought so.

Nobody really gives a shiat if you use WMD's. You just need to make sure you got enough clout in the UN. Hell, Saddam used it on the Kurds pretty blatantly and we did jack and squat about it.
 
2013-09-03 06:57:19 PM

Subtle_Canary: psht, warcrime. How many US politicians went to jail for Operation Ranch Hand? Yeah i thought so.

Nobody really gives a shiat if you use WMD's.


Ah. I think we are having different conversations here. I was answering the question of why chemical weapons are worse then conventional arms and almost universally reviled, even in warfare.

You seem to be arguing some vague point that because not all standards are universally adhered to, then no standards mean anything. Or something about because the US is not without sin, no one can cast any judgment on any country for anything they do. Or something. I don't know.

Anywho. We aren't actually having a discussion, you are just posting commentary with my post as a trigger.
 
2013-09-03 07:50:48 PM
Oh no, im not arguing whether they are heinous or not. Im arguing that they are good at what they do. That was the entire basis of my initial statement. People act as if WMD's are these shiatty weapons from a military standpoint when they arent accurate and might hurt your own troops. Thats the point of them. They are area denial weapons, just like dumping variable fuse cluster munitions over an entire country side.
 
2013-09-03 08:30:30 PM
Drag the region down? The region is already "the Middle East".

If they had simultaneous earthquakes, floods and fire tornadoes then it would only result in billions of dollars worth of improvements.
 
2013-09-03 11:34:39 PM

Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.


I now have you farkied as "human"

+1
 
2013-09-04 12:42:03 AM

Brainsick: Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.

I now have you farkied as "human"

+1


Holy shiat, I think Sentient just found the sole way we could get involved without this turning into an absolute and utter farkup for everyone.
 
2013-09-04 09:54:02 AM
All the more reason to do it. The world is tired of that region anyways.
 
2013-09-04 12:56:37 PM

Sentient: Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas.


We have stealth cargo planes?
 
2013-09-04 01:04:40 PM

Shadowe: Brainsick: Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.

I now have you farkied as "human"

+1

Holy shiat, I think Sentient just found the sole way we could get involved without this turning into an absolute and utter farkup for everyone.


IF, big IF, the US of A would drop, water, batteries, fans, toilet paper, food, radios, (get it?) instead o bombs and burny hurty chit, where would we be?

CHEAPER!
SAFER!
BETTER!

Where would we be?
 
2013-09-04 01:06:37 PM
Syria is experiencing a DISASTER.
Maybe not "natural", but is w/o question a DISASTER.

How about a DISASTER RESPONSE?
No, not like New Orleans.
Hmm,,
 
2013-09-04 01:07:24 PM

BigNumber12: Sentient: Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas.

We have stealth cargo planes?


yes, shh.
 
2013-09-04 01:30:09 PM

snocone: Syria is experiencing a DISASTER.
Maybe not "natural", but is w/o question a DISASTER.


So THAT's what Napolitano meant when she said "Man-Made Disasters"!
 
Displayed 383 of 383 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report