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

(The Atlantic)   Playing poker? During my Syria hearings? It's more likely than you think   (theatlantic.com) divider line 124
    More: Fail, John McCain, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, hearings, State of the Union  
•       •       •

2046 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 3:38 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 08:23:36 AM
McCain would bomb anyone given the chance. His presence really isn't needed.
 
2013-09-04 08:25:03 AM
I'm just surprised that mummy knows how to use a smartphone
 
2013-09-04 08:25:08 AM
It wasn't like McCain was going to ask any hard questions of Kerry or listen to the answers of any hard questions.
 
2013-09-04 08:26:13 AM

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


Apparently in 1968.
 
2013-09-04 08:29:13 AM

TheJoe03: LewDux: Why would Assad, white, western educated man, want to gas rebels, a bunch of brown terrorists? That does not make sense

Well the people of the Levant are technically Caucasian, but I still don't get what the hell you're talking about. Hell, gassing rebels only serves to put him in a shiatty position with the world, since I guess using chemical weapons is a bigger deal than killing people with bombs and bullets. I REALLY hate to agree with Putin, but if we have evidence that the Syrian government gassed their people, why hasn't it been shown to the public or at least the UN? I don't see how our plan to bomb Syria will lead to anything positive, it would be nice for you to prove me wrong instead of bringing up some stupid racial argument that doesn't even make sense.

/Unless I missed your point, and in that case I'm sorry. It's 3 AM and my insomniac ass can't sleep.


Why would Assad, white, western educated man, want to gas rebels, a bunch of brown terrorists? That does not make sense

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense

Logic is good, but we are talking about mass murderer, son of mass murderer
 
2013-09-04 08:31:04 AM
I can't stand McCain but so what.
 
2013-09-04 08:32:28 AM

Astralwand: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

Actually there is a pretty good reason why Chemical and Biological weapons are banned that I don't hear people talking about much.  It's an economic one.  See the bombs and bullets do lots of damage to stuff, buildings, infrastructure and the like leading leaders to realize the economic damage they end up doing to an area before they bomb the shiat out of it.  Now Chemical and Biological weapons, they kill the people without destroying any of that awesome infrastructure.  Leaving the supplies and material safe.  The cost of destroying a civilian population with chemical and biological weapons is way more trivial then the cost of bombing a population into the stone age.  Take that and the fact that it's a lot harder to control chemical weapons and biological weapons it's pretty clear why we would rather be bombed and shot.


Not only that, but in this situation, Assad is threatening his neighbors for no good reason. They are known to have this stuff in the country. No matter who used it, it has been used. It is supposed to be under control of the government. If it isn't, then the government can't control it, and needs to dealt with. This is on par with some rouge getting ahold of a nuclear launch code. Deal with the rouge AND permanently dismember and bury the source of the screwup, no matter who or where. Its too damn important.
 
2013-09-04 08:33:55 AM
I wonder how many times they've had to replace McCain's phone because he wrote on the screen with that Sharpie.
 
2013-09-04 08:34:29 AM
Taking a page from the Assadite/Russiophiles, but that one picture is not enough proof that McCain was playing poker. We need concrete video proof. What proof there is isnt credible even if there is a picture.
 
2013-09-04 08:34:35 AM
Imagine how it would feel to be a Syrian civilian knowing the fate of your country and very life is being debated by thunder thumbs McCain and Pelosi 5 year old grandchild input influencing foreign policy.
 The mental state of our current leadership is highly questionable.
www.nndb.com
Somewhere a dog is giving intel advice to a congressman.
 
2013-09-04 08:35:32 AM
imokaywiththis.jpg

McCain's been Obama's little sock-puppet about going to War on Syria. Last night he was on The O'Reilly Factor spouting Obama talking points.
 
2013-09-04 08:38:11 AM

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
 
2013-09-04 08:38:23 AM

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.
 
2013-09-04 08:39:47 AM

PainfulItching: This is on par with some rouge getting ahold of a nuclear launch code.


Or an eyeliner getting a suitcase nuke.
 
2013-09-04 08:41:20 AM

Paris1127: With the committee room a full house and Obama going all in, the people deserve a straight answer in spades from Senator McCain. Looking flush won't cut it. America needs its hearts won over, not beaten with clubs.


We were at the same table when the chips were checked
A gamblin Rebel who Inspects the Deck
Just when you thought we would fold our hand
Against all odds we raised the bet like we changed the plans
It was live on air but in between station breaks
I was holdin a pair and just made the table stakes
Split the demos, put insurance on tapes
A safeguard against the crusaders in capes
If I double down they say the Gods are sharks
If we win against the house they thought the cards was marked
We draw hit after hit from a royal flush menu
While the dealer promoted the full house venue
A spade in the club with the heart to wear diamonds
The high roller who got credit upon signin
They look puzzled when I shuffle, most of 'em stunned by the hustle
Recourse of bluff game's your muscle
 
2013-09-04 08:43:09 AM

neversubmit: I can't stand McCain but so what.


That's how I feel, seems rather hypocritical to get upset about something so trivial. I mean...I realize bombing Syria isn't trivial, but everyone gets bored at work.
 
2013-09-04 08:43:14 AM

Astralwand: Take that and the fact that it's a lot harder to control chemical weapons and biological weapons it's pretty clear why we would rather be bombed and shot.


Clearly the destruction to buildings and infrastructure leading up to the gas attack hasn't deterred Assad.  So the outrage now isn't that a lot of civilians are still dying, but that the damage to buildings and infrastructure isn't commensurate?  That's a curious threshold.

PainfulItching: Not only that, but in this situation, Assad is threatening his neighbors for no good reason.


If only there was some kind of international political body that was established specifically to respond to such regional conflicts and human rights crises...
 
2013-09-04 08:45:07 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: neversubmit: I can't stand McCain but so what.

That's how I feel, seems rather hypocritical to get upset about something so trivial. I mean...I realize bombing Syria isn't trivial, but everyone gets bored at work.


who exactly is upset here
 
2013-09-04 08:45:55 AM

HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention


I wonder what the cosplay was like for that 'con.
 
2013-09-04 08:46:43 AM

thamike: Thought we wouldn't notice, but we did.


yafh.com
 
2013-09-04 08:46:56 AM

Radioactive Ass: McCain already had a hard-on for doing in Assad. For him the hearing was just a show. His mind was made up long before the CW attack. That being said he said that he lost "Thousands of dollars" in that game so there is that.

\fake dollars... he said


Will he have to sell one of his houses?
 
2013-09-04 08:49:15 AM
I am sure there is a good answer to this question but it alludes me, why did the Syrian government use chemical weapons to kill 1500 people after Obama made his Red Line statement? They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:51 AM
If it was somebody on record as saying they weren't convinced either way and wanted to hear the case be made, it might be a thing, but McCain is not exactly an undecided vote on this one.  The comedy shows will have fun with it, though.

It would have been so much better if he was watching cat videos.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:52 AM

HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention


And by what jurisdiction is that enforced?

Wooly Bully: This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.


That isn't really an answer to my question.
 
2013-09-04 08:51:05 AM
I like how he thinks it's a joke too, imagine doing that and getting caught in a super important business meeting in the private sector.
 
2013-09-04 08:51:36 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: seems rather hypocritical to get upset about something so trivial


Seems rather hypocritical to use Syria as a platform for taking pot-shots at the President, only to piss away time in the hearing playing on your phone.
 
2013-09-04 08:53:16 AM

Gunny Highway: They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.


I don't think Assad has much to worry about here.  We can't even figure out who the "bad guys" are.  I'd like to think we're a bit more deliberative about going to war after Bush's little trek to Iraq that we would at least identify the enemy first this time around.
 
2013-09-04 08:55:19 AM

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

And by what jurisdiction is that enforced?


Yeah, the Duke boys clearly crossed the county line after deploying that nerve gas.
 
2013-09-04 08:55:22 AM

Gunny Highway: I am sure there is a good answer to this question but it alludes me, why did the Syrian government use chemical weapons to kill 1500 people after Obama made his Red Line statement? They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.


I heard a retired general on NPR say in the area that they used chemical weapons the rebels had been dug in and just got a shipment of  anti aircraft missiles and they had shot down 2 planes already. I don't know if that's true but it's what was said...
 
2013-09-04 08:56:40 AM

GoldSpider: Gunny Highway: They were doing just fine killing people, and not risking foreign intervention, using conventional weapons.

I don't think Assad has much to worry about here.  We can't even figure out who the "bad guys" are.  I'd like to think we're a bit more deliberative about going to war after Bush's little trek to Iraq that we would at least identify the enemy first this time around.


I hope that is true.  I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist
 
2013-09-04 08:59:00 AM

HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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


Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.
 
2013-09-04 08:59:21 AM

GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?


GoldSpider: Wooly Bully: This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.

That isn't really an answer to my question.


Other people already answered you, The rest of us are just laughing in disbelief.
 
2013-09-04 08:59:25 AM

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

And by what jurisdiction is that enforced?

Wooly Bully: This is a shockingly stupid post, even for a libertarian.

That isn't really an answer to my question.



 The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.
The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.
 
2013-09-04 09:00:43 AM

Gunny Highway: I hope that is true. I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist


Oh the other hand, the White House seems determined to make this happen despite polling that shows overwhelming opposition to military intervention.  I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.
 
2013-09-04 09:03:31 AM

GoldSpider: Gunny Highway: I hope that is true. I was also hoping Congress was going to block this.

/optimist

Oh the other hand, the White House seems determined to make this happen despite polling that shows overwhelming opposition to military intervention.  I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.


That is sort of why I was hoping Congress would put their foot down and maybe try to grab that "Congress decides if we go to war" power back.  It would at least put the office of the President in an awkward spot, ignore Congress or obey.  Could set a good precedent.
 
2013-09-04 09:07:07 AM

HighOnCraic: The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.


You missed the part where I asked how the agreement (which as imontheinternet pointed out, Syria did not sign) is enforced.  Strongly-worded letters?
 
2013-09-04 09:08:47 AM

dletter: dletter: The bigger thing is, can someone determine what site that is.... is it just some "play for fun" site, or an illegal offshore site for real money?

If it is the latter, the  theppa.org  will have a field day with it.

Apparently VIP Poker on an IPhone... oh well.   McCain is getting it on Twitter tho, since he sent a tweet trying to laugh it off.


Yeah, his response was awesome.

I think McCain is starting to say "Frak it" and just saying whatever is on his mind nowadays, especially since he doesn't really have anything to lose.  Let's hope, because his "reformed maverick" and "Bush is an awesome president" days suck.
 
2013-09-04 09:10:13 AM

imontheinternet: HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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

Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.


Israel has signed it, but they haven't ratified it yet.
 
2013-09-04 09:10:54 AM

Wooly Bully: Other people already answered you,


They haven't either.  All they've said is that a body armed with nothing more than good intentions says chemical weapons are bad.

Wooly Bully: The rest of us are just laughing in disbelief.


Indeed, it's laughable to suggest we ought not kick yet another middle eastern hornets' nest.  "If you're not with us, you're against us", right?
 
2013-09-04 09:14:13 AM

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.

You missed the part where I asked how the agreement (which as imontheinternet pointed out, Syria did not sign) is enforced.  Strongly-worded letters?


Isn't this thread about a hearing on whether or not we should enforce it?
 
2013-09-04 09:15:41 AM

GoldSpider: I'm at a total loss in figuring out what is driving this.


ordnance doesn't grow on trees
 
2013-09-04 09:15:51 AM

CPennypacker: Isn't this thread about a hearing on whether or not we should enforce it?


Fair point.  Goody, another "global" pact that the United States alone is responsible for enforcing.  Just delightful.
 
2013-09-04 09:16:31 AM

GoldSpider: Wooly Bully: Other people already answered you,

They haven't either.  All they've said is that a body armed with nothing more than good intentions says chemical weapons are bad.

Wooly Bully: The rest of us are just laughing in disbelief.

Indeed, it's laughable to suggest we ought not kick yet another middle eastern hornets' nest.  "If you're not with us, you're against us", right?


Look, there are two possibilities here. One is that you were actually asking a question because you wanted to know something, which makes no sense because you could have looked up the answer yourself with that device in front of you.

The other, and we all know this is what's happening, is that you were asking what's known as a "rhetorical question". You don't want an answer at all; you're trying to make a point without bothering to do the work of presenting evidence and a reasoned argument.

So please stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending it's the former. You aren't smart enough to patronize us.
 
2013-09-04 09:17:17 AM

Headso: ordnance doesn't grow on trees


Indeed, but I'd thought we'd exorcised most of the MIC cronies from the White House by now.
 
2013-09-04 09:20:07 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Isn't this thread about a hearing on whether or not we should enforce it?

Fair point.  Goody, another "global" pact that the United States alone is responsible for enforcing.  Just delightful.


I see your point though. One of the reasons Checmical and Biological weapons are frowned upon is because they are very effective at killing civilians, and not so effective at killing enemy combatants. If Assad is slaughtering civilians indiscriminantly anyway, then the question of whether the use of chemical weaponry warrants intervention in this case isn't very cut and dry at all.
 
2013-09-04 09:21:02 AM

Wooly Bully: One is that you were actually asking a question because you wanted to know something, which makes no sense because you could have looked up the answer yourself with that device in front of you.


There are so many toothless global goodwill organizations out there, I was unaware there was one that specifically dealt with chemical weapons.  My sincerest apologies.

Of course that still doesn't answer why indiscriminately killing people with gas is worse than bombs or bullets.  The closest thing to an answer I got to that was that gas doesn't damage buildings and infrastructure.
 
2013-09-04 09:24:16 AM

CPennypacker: If Assad is slaughtering civilians indiscriminantly anyway, then the question of whether the use of chemical weaponry warrants intervention in this case isn't very cut and dry at all.


Precisely my point.  That and the fact that we have no idea who the rebels are, and who would be in charge should we assist them in toppling Assad.  I suppose, though, we should be quite competent at creating democratic middle-eastern governments after our case-study in Iraq, right?
 
2013-09-04 09:27:47 AM

GoldSpider: There are so many toothless global goodwill organizations out there, I was unaware there was one that specifically dealt with chemical weapons. My sincerest apologies.


Well, the toothlessness you're referring to is a real problem, but that wasn't in your so-called "question".

As for when chemical weapons became prohibited, which was your question, you can look that up. There's a ton of information about it out there if you're genuinely interested.
 
2013-09-04 09:28:26 AM

HighOnCraic: imontheinternet: HighOnCraic: GoldSpider: When did we decide that indiscriminately killing civilians with gas was worse than doing so with bombs and bullets?

1997

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

Syria's not a signatory to the CWC.  Neither is Israel.

Israel has signed it, but they haven't ratified it yet.


Still, neither are parties.  There's probably an argument to be made by Syria's UN membership or the Geneva Conventions, but Syria not being bound by the CWC really undercuts the case under international law.
 
2013-09-04 09:33:53 AM

Wooly Bully: As for when chemical weapons became prohibited, which was your question, you can look that up.


Without enforcement there is no prohibition.

Look at all of the human rights violations countries like China get away with, despite similar prohibitions in the UN charter.  Without an established (and consistently exercised) means of enforcement, these kinds of agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report