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

(The 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  
•       •       •

2060 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 3:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 09:40:52 AM  

imontheinternet: 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.



The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects - the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.
The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.

And Syria signed it.

 http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/1925/syrianarabrepublic/acc/pa ris
 
2013-09-04 09:41:36 AM  
Wait until he finds out about Candy Crush.
 
2013-09-04 09:43:36 AM  

HighOnCraic: And Syria signed it.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/1925/syrianarabrepublic/acc/pari s


So this is the UN's problem to deal with then, right?
 
2013-09-04 09:54:05 AM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 850x567]


Farking brilliant.
 
2013-09-04 09:56:22 AM  

HighOnCraic: The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.

And Syria signed it.


They signed and ratified it in '25, but refused to sign or ratify it again on this specific issue in 1997.  Again, that undercuts the argument that a war on Syria over chemical weapons is lawful under international law.

Plus, when that was signed in '25, it was understood to prohibit the use of chemical weapons against other nations, not internally.  The prohibition of using the weapons internally came about later.  According to the link, the international courts didn't deal with the question of internal use until '95, two years before Syria refused to sign the new treaty.

Also, all this analysis comes before we even get to who enforces it or who even used chemical weapons in Syria, and there is likely also a question about whether it is lawful to intervene when the government forces used them, but not when the rebels do..
 
2013-09-04 10:04:17 AM  
Does McCain play poker better than he flies fighter jets?
 
2013-09-04 10:07:38 AM  

GoldSpider: 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.


Do you know that the word "gullible" isn't listed in the dictionary?
 
2013-09-04 10:12:57 AM  

Therion: GoldSpider: 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.

Do you know that the word "gullible" isn't listed in the dictionary?


Really? Let me look that up...
 
2013-09-04 10:13:02 AM  

Therion: Do you know that the word "gullible" isn't listed in the dictionary?


Not according to snopes.
 
2013-09-04 10:28:07 AM  

sendtodave: Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.

WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too.


Oh, go fark yourself you partisan douchenozzle. Take your bullshiat back to Freep.
 
2013-09-04 10:46:04 AM  

trotsky: sendtodave: Harry_Seldon: Triumph: Well, you can't blame him, given how great a Sec. of State Kerry has proven to be. It's not like McCain has any questions worth asking. I mean, look at the long list of countries the State Department has lined up as allies in this strike on Syria. Kerry's got the U.N Security Council convinced and buttoned up. Russia's promised to stay out of it. Britain's got our back, of course, but there was never any question of that. Really what else is there to do but pat Kerry on the back and give him a big thumbs up?

This unilateralism stuff is not good.

WAPO wants to go. The liberal MSM media has spoken. Peace loving liberals want their chance at a war, too.

Oh, go fark yourself you partisan douchenozzle. Take your bullshiat back to Freep.


Liberals shouldn't be hawks.
 
2013-09-04 10:56:10 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.


http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-syrian-angle-obama-and-me di a-dont.html

This is about a huge pipeline. Maybe? I dunno.
 
2013-09-04 11:02:38 AM  

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: And Syria signed it.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/a/1925/syrianarabrepublic/acc/pari s

So this is the UN's problem to deal with then, right?


We're still part of the UN and NATO.
 
2013-09-04 11:05:50 AM  

Fart_Machine: We're still part of the UN and NATO.


Right, so let's stop acting like the sole member.
 
2013-09-04 12:23:28 PM  
He should've called a press conference during the briefing to complain that nt enough information has been given.
 
2013-09-04 12:49:43 PM  

Bontesla: TheJoe03: So how do we know the Syrian rebels didn't use the chemical weapons? They've already been proven (by the UN even) to at least have sarin in their possession. Either way, it's a very bad idea to back people that have open members of Al Qaeda do a good amount of the fighting for them.

This has been answered more than a dozen times.


IN this thread? Really?
 
2013-09-04 01:10:08 PM  

PainfulItching: How long was he playing? 2 minutes or an hour? Obviously it's a facepalm moment. But did anyone besides me actually watch the session? No new information whatsoever. Maybe in the closed session where they could have some classified material, but the televised one? It was a formality to get statements on the record. Everything discussed had been in the media for days. Only an oblivious moron (wait, this is congress) would not know what was going on.

Had he been checking his email or news websites for updates, would there be the same uproar? You'd think he'd be fully briefed before and know that the meeting was a dog and pony show. Not excusing this in the slightest you understand.




Can I play?

What if he was looking at porn?
 
2013-09-04 01:13:51 PM  
TheJoe03:

This has been answered more than a dozen times.

IN this thread? Really?


media.tumblr.com

How can you emphasize IN? That doesn't even make any sense
 
2013-09-04 01:22:40 PM  

Tax Boy: TheJoe03:

This has been answered more than a dozen times.

IN this thread? Really?

[media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

How can you emphasize IN? That doesn't even make any sense


I accidentally pushed the shift key too long.
 
2013-09-04 01:25:30 PM  

Wooly Bully: 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.




Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?
 
2013-09-04 01:56:25 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Wooly Bully: 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.



Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?


Because they're not innocent civilians?
 
2013-09-04 02:06:10 PM  
flat the flop then jam on the turn unless the 7 hits.
 
2013-09-04 02:31:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: StoPPeRmobile: Wooly Bully: 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.

Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?

Because they're not innocent civilians?




It's weird that we gas criminals but won't shoot them, for execution.
 
2013-09-04 11:54:35 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Fart_Machine: StoPPeRmobile: Wooly Bully: 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.

Duh, it's because it doesn't look as cool.

Why do we gas criminals in this country?

Because they're not innocent civilians?

It's weird that we gas criminals but won't shoot them, for execution.


They still do in Utah.
 
Displayed 24 of 124 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report