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.

(Salon)   John Kerry is totally blowing his sales pitch by trying to be all things to all people, and making ridiculous promises about what our military can do that no one in their right mind believes   (salon.com) divider line 294
    More: Obvious, global powers, Delaware Democratic Party, opposition to the Vietnam War, sanities, intelligence assessment, chemical weapons, Congressional Black Caucus, foreign ministers  
•       •       •

2036 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 2:30 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



294 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-06 01:20:57 PM
For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.
 
2013-09-06 02:02:38 PM
You know who else made ridiculous promises that the military couldn't keep?
 
2013-09-06 02:13:59 PM
Now if Kerry was using the "Munich moment," as a symbol of as an action the US could take similar to Israel's Operation wrath of God(that was a result of actions in the Munich Olympics by black September that killed Israeli citizens) and show the Americans harmed by Assad then he would be on to something the US may approve. The problem is that no Americans have been harmed by doing nothing and that will change if a President's vanity causes the US to go to war with Syria. No national interest has even be expressed or explained for interfering in an internal conflictother than the generic it is bad for the world to kill people a certain way
 
2013-09-06 02:31:44 PM
Now we know "Why the long face?"
 
2013-09-06 02:35:33 PM
Hitler Discovers John Kerry Has Been Lying About Syria:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
 
2013-09-06 02:36:28 PM

DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.


So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.
 
2013-09-06 02:38:52 PM
The Secretary of State sitting down with baby-faced Chris Hayes seems like a desperate move to me. Scared of Maddow or just after the earlier time slot?
 
2013-09-06 02:39:12 PM

LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.


The part where we somehow manage to do so much damage to Assad that he won't ever think about using weapons he thinks he needs to win, but somehow at the exact same time not do enough damage to reduce his odds of actually winning.
 
2013-09-06 02:39:47 PM
Well let's be fair to Kerry here, he's trying to sell ice to eskimos. It isn't like this is some great idea and his pitch is so bad that it makes this great idea appear to be an idiotic one.
 
2013-09-06 02:40:57 PM

DamnYankees: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

The part where we somehow manage to do so much damage to Assad that he won't ever think about using weapons he thinks he needs to win, but somehow at the exact same time not do enough damage to reduce his odds of actually winning.


I don't think either you or I know enough about the total of Assad's capabilities to properly make that call.
 
2013-09-06 02:41:56 PM

LasersHurt: I don't think either you or I know enough about the total of Assad's capabilities to properly make that call.


I know a claim of hubristic bullshiat when I hear it.
 
2013-09-06 02:42:37 PM
I guess Kerry is mad that Assad did not pic up the tab when they had dinner with their wives. If you fall for what they say about Syria and think we need to go to war to help Al Qaeda over throw Assad I have a bridge to sell to you, even comes with a on ramp to hope and change.
 
2013-09-06 02:45:23 PM

LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.


Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.
 
2013-09-06 02:45:40 PM

pmdgrwr: we need to go to war to help Al Qaeda over throw Assad


I'll take "the most incorrect view on the matter" for $1000, Alex.
 
2013-09-06 02:45:54 PM
I mean come on, it's not like Kerry has a history of failing to close a sale when he had a product people should have been interested i--Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
2013-09-06 02:47:04 PM

Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.


Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing
 
2013-09-06 02:49:23 PM
So he embellished it before he ends up retracting it?

/Not a Kerry hater, but Iraq has farked all US credibility for years to come
 
2013-09-06 02:50:15 PM

Headso: Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.

Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing


Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".
 
2013-09-06 02:50:22 PM
I'm not sure who, but dammit somebody is gonna greet us as liberators.  I swear.
 
2013-09-06 02:51:55 PM
Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?
 
2013-09-06 02:51:57 PM

eurotrader: The problem is that no Americans have been harmed by doing nothing and that will change if a President's vanity causes the US to go to war with Syria. No national interest has even be expressed or explained for interfering in an internal conflictother than the generic it is bad for the world to kill people a certain way


This has nothing to do with any vanity and inaction would have long term detrimental effects to the US's global standing and interests, as well as further endangering troops in any future operations.
 
2013-09-06 02:52:25 PM

paygun: I'm not sure who, but dammit somebody is gonna greet us as liberators.  I swear.


Haliburton will
 
2013-09-06 02:52:47 PM
Pet theory: Hillary stepped down as SoS partially because she was going to run for president and partially because they* knew this mess with Syria was coming and they didn't want to have her name dragged through the muck because of it. Kerry is a much better fall guy.

*"They" potentially meaning Hillary's campaign people, the Obama administration, and/or the DNC.
 
2013-09-06 02:52:48 PM

vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week


I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.
 
2013-09-06 02:54:10 PM

qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".


As callous as this sounds, this has absolutely nothing to do with "stopping the killing". Photos of dead babies are great for PR, but the primary purpose of all this is maintaining convention.
 
2013-09-06 02:54:19 PM

LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.


We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.
 
2013-09-06 02:55:18 PM

qorkfiend: Headso: Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.

Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing

Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".


what do chemical weapons do? kill people?
 
2013-09-06 02:56:00 PM

DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.


Why is that impossible?

If I went around kicking puppies and you punched me in the face pretty good, I would probably stop kicking dogs.  It would not, should that be your only punch, be even remotely enough damage to my puppy-kicking that I could no longer do it.  It isn't the one punch that stops me, it is the knowledge that I will be punched again and again, eventually resulting in me choosing between kicking ten more puppies and me keeping a semblance of facial structure.

I haven't paid enough attention to Syria to know whether the rebels have a chance at winning or not, but unless they are right on the brink there should be enough leeway to both send the message "cut that shiat out" while still leaving Assad with enough strength to win without chemical weapons.

Otoh, if he cannot win without using chemical weapons, nothing short of overthrowing him would stop him.

He may not think he needs chemical weapons to win.  He may have thought he was calling our bluff.  Hell, I'm sure in hindsight saddam wouldn't have even considered the slightest impediment to inspectors searching for WMDs.  Sometimes the bad guys win with these bluffs, sometimes they don't.  There is also the possibility he didn't even order the attack.  We have a pretty damn good military and people do stupid shiat sometimes.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a shiat call like that in the Syrian military.

There is also the message that the attack sends, which is that if you do it again we will do it again, which would ultimately result in his downfall (and our subsequently looking much better for overthrowing him than if we did so and he never used chemical weapons at all).

DamnYankees: I know a claim of hubristic bullshiat when I hear it.


Can you give us a good breakdown of the evidence that leads you to believe that Assad is that close to the brink of defeat? Troop comparisons, arms numbers, supplies?  Or are you just going off your gut instinct?
 
2013-09-06 02:57:09 PM

Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?


Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."

vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.


One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.
 
2013-09-06 02:58:32 PM

Headso: what do chemical weapons do? kill people?


Bad dog. Bad.

You know what you are doing.  Stop.  The deliberate obtuseness and dishonesty is ridiculous in these syria threads.
 
2013-09-06 02:58:40 PM

vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?


or a big ass pile of VX nerve agent, spreading it far and wide and killing thousands of people
 
2013-09-06 02:59:15 PM

Headso: qorkfiend: Headso: Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.

Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing

Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?


Sure, if you want to argue semantics.

Our stated objective is not "end the civil war", which is clearly what you are implying.
 
2013-09-06 03:00:42 PM
All he needs to do is claim we need to go to war to cover up the WMDs that came from Iraq.  The left will eat that up.
 
2013-09-06 03:06:35 PM

LasersHurt: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.


HAHA.... Oh man.
 
2013-09-06 03:08:04 PM
no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.
 
2013-09-06 03:08:33 PM

lockers: LasersHurt: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.

HAHA.... Oh man.


Let me guess, you think I am somehow implying that there are not accidents and innocents killed by American warmaking? Because your reading comprehension is nil?
 
2013-09-06 03:09:03 PM
Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.
 
2013-09-06 03:09:57 PM

imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.


Armchair foreign policy at its finest.
 
2013-09-06 03:10:10 PM

LasersHurt: lockers: LasersHurt: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.

HAHA.... Oh man.

Let me guess, you think I am somehow implying that there are not accidents and innocents killed by American warmaking? Because your reading comprehension is nil?


Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.
 
2013-09-06 03:10:36 PM

kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.


Well, I wouldn't say 'no one'.

But my hope is Obama leaves it to the legislature, and then they vote it down and he doesn't take action.
 
2013-09-06 03:11:04 PM

CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.


I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.
 
2013-09-06 03:11:11 PM

imontheinternet: This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.


Yeah but come on, think about the alternative.  If we don't do this it may make Obama look bad for a few days.
 
2013-09-06 03:12:26 PM

imontheinternet: If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.


Otoh, look at France.  They favor action now, but were smartly against going into Iraq.  They didn't burn through all of their 'try and do some good enforcing international laws' political capital like Britain and the U.S.
 
2013-09-06 03:13:29 PM
So he's going with the GOP talking-point of our soldiers being the greatest, bestest, most invinciblest fighting force in the known universe and how DARE anyone even SUGGEST that they have any kind of limitations (or need for federal benefits...) of ANY kind?!
 
2013-09-06 03:15:14 PM

paygun: imontheinternet: This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

Yeah but come on, think about the alternative.  If we don't do this it may make Obama look bad for a few days.


That certainly is at the forefront of my mind.  I mean, I've been told millions of times on Fark that I will do anything to defend my supposed messiah.
 
2013-09-06 03:15:17 PM

LasersHurt: imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Armchair foreign policy at its finest.


I'd rather raise concerns than dismissively and arrogantly ignore history out of blind faith in authority.
 
2013-09-06 03:16:18 PM
Lerch will do exactly as Prince Bandar wishes.
Prince Bandar wants Assad gone, because Assad is standing in the way of an Arab gas pipeline to supply Europe.
As anyone could imagine, Putin doesn't like this a bit because Russia has a monopoly on selling gas to Europe.
If Arab gas goes to Europe, the Russian economy will take a massive haircut.

So there it is in three easy pieces.
Prince Bandar gets what he wants or he gets John Kerry's balls in a jar on his desk in Mecca.
 
2013-09-06 03:17:33 PM

kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.


AIPAC is people, my friend.
 
2013-09-06 03:18:37 PM

imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.


Mission creep is certainly a concern of mine as well, but even then the cost of inaction still outweighs it in my mind.
 
2013-09-06 03:19:29 PM

LasersHurt: Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."

vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.


Yea... just once. Wow.

Tell me, how can you tell what specific buildings contain chem. weapons? What do chemical weapons look like? Do the launchers look just like every other projectile weapon out there? (hint: Yes, yes they do)

But go ahead. Our military magic show will only kill evildoers!
 
2013-09-06 03:20:36 PM

Smackledorfer: imontheinternet: If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Otoh, look at France.  They favor action now, but were smartly against going into Iraq.  They didn't burn through all of their 'try and do some good enforcing international laws' political capital like Britain and the U.S.


The reason France is moving forward is that they refused to put it to a vote in its legislature.  The war is extremely unpopular there, and their support is wavering.

Plus, France was extremely hawkish on Libya.  Their stance on intervention has changed in the last decade.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:03 PM
In the big picture, the jihadis amount to the cost of doing business -- the Saudis write them off as such and that's what's going on here. Nobody thinks the jihadis are the slightest threat to an installed regime in Syria.
This is about gas supply and marketing.

Arab gas to Europe at the expense of Putin's Russia.
Right now, Putin has Obama in check but it will be pretty easy for Obama to get out and get the upper hand. Putin's support of Assad is historical now that the Saudis, Israelis, and their primary lapdog, the USA, all agree the Assad will have to go.

The trouble is that Assad was Putin's last line of defense against losing the European gas monopoly.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:26 PM
We all get that this has already been decided, right? It's pretty thickly in the air that this is going to happen whether the American people want it to or not. A very 2003 vibe. They're just waiting for all of us to settle down and get used to that fact.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:30 PM
I think that before we do anything, we should take in some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees- give them asylum or help other countries like Jordan and Lebanon take care of them.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:44 PM

The Bestest: imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Mission creep is certainly a concern of mine as well, but even then the cost of inaction still outweighs it in my mind.


Given Assad's momentum in the war, if we do nothing the rebels will likely be defeated and the situation will change from a full on civil war to a smaller scale insurgency.
 
2013-09-06 03:24:54 PM

imontheinternet: The Bestest: imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Mission creep is certainly a concern of mine as well, but even then the cost of inaction still outweighs it in my mind.

Given Assad's momentum in the war, if we do nothing the rebels will likely be defeated and the situation will change from a full on civil war to a smaller scale insurgency.

controlled massacre.
 
2013-09-06 03:24:54 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Armchair foreign policy at its finest.

I'd rather raise concerns than dismissively and arrogantly ignore history out of blind faith in authority.


You'd also make unfounded accusations against someone if they don't respect your "valuable" input, apparently.

Psylence: But go ahead. Our military magic show will only kill evildoers!


Yeah because that's what I'm saying. Nothing reasonable like your "we have no possible way to differentiate buildings, arms, or anything else" stance.
 
2013-09-06 03:25:21 PM

Psylence: LasersHurt: Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."

vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.

Yea... just once. Wow.

Tell me, how can you tell what specific buildings contain chem. weapons? What do chemical weapons look like? Do the launchers look just like every other projectile weapon out there? (hint: Yes, yes they do)

But go ahead. Our military magic show will only kill evildoers!


I heard a story on here the other day about Kosovo.  NATO targeted tanks in bombings, destroyed the, and halted the attack.  As it turns out, they had been hitting cars altered to look like tanks to the targeting systems.  As soon as the bombings ended, the real tanks were brought out from storage and put back into service.
 
2013-09-06 03:25:24 PM

LasersHurt: CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.

I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.


You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens
 
2013-09-06 03:25:29 PM

DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.


Hey, if you can level a quarterback every time he leaves the pocket, he'll stop doing that. It doesn't mean you've tipped the balance in favor of your team to win the game.
 
2013-09-06 03:25:58 PM

imontheinternet: Smackledorfer: imontheinternet: If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Otoh, look at France.  They favor action now, but were smartly against going into Iraq.  They didn't burn through all of their 'try and do some good enforcing international laws' political capital like Britain and the U.S.

The reason France is moving forward is that they refused to put it to a vote in its legislature.  The war is extremely unpopular there, and their support is wavering.

Plus, France was extremely hawkish on Libya.  Their stance on intervention has changed in the last decade.


Is it their overall stance though, or the fact that egypt, libya, or syria aren't comparable actions or reasons for action as Iraq?

My point is we as a country were stupid as shiat to go after Iraq, and are now overreacting back the other way (which again I am still against action here, but am just speaking to public sentiment).

We as a nation have been pretty farking stupid about middle eastern intervention over the years. If we don't go in now, it may simply be the right move for the wrong reasons.
 
2013-09-06 03:26:51 PM
So we want to bomb Assad because someone thinks he used poison gas against his own people. No one has proven to me that Assad did this and not the rebels fighting to over throw the government. But even if he did, it is still a Civil War that we have no business meddling in.  All that being said, I find it interesting that the State Dept Web Site giving a travel advisory to Syria depict the rebels this way:

"Syrian opposition groups have utilized car bombs, improvised explosive device/indirect-fire attacks, sniper fire, and kidnappings throughout the country. Foreign combatants - including Iranian regime elements, Hizballah fighters, Islamic extremists, and al Qaida-linked elements - are participating in hostilities" http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1035.html

But I guess if BOB sticks his foot in his mouth with his red-line comment which isn't his according to him but he did say, I guess we have no choice to go to war.
 
2013-09-06 03:27:57 PM

kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.


In recent times the protocol has been interpreted to cover internal conflicts as well international ones. In 1995 an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that "there had undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of chemical weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts." In 2005 the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that customary international law includes a ban on the use of chemical weapons in internal as well as international conflicts.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

International law requires a response. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who either have something to gain by ignoring the situation and a lot of people who have no problem with brown people killing each other.
 
2013-09-06 03:28:24 PM

coeyagi: That certainly is at the forefront of my mind.  I mean, I've been told millions of times on Fark that I will do anything to defend my supposed messiah.


All you have to do to counter that is say that's it's possible that Barak Obama may not be an infallible living god that walks among us.
 
2013-09-06 03:28:38 PM

netcentric: LasersHurt: CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.

I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens


"The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis."
 
2013-09-06 03:28:54 PM

DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.


You can't. This is what I've been saying all along. This proposed action is giving aid and assistance to the rebels who, despite all of Kerry.s bloviated blustering blathering to the contrary, are tied to Al Qaeda. This alone is enough to not do anything at all to help them. There are actual laws against helping them in any way starting with the Patriot Act and ending at the constitution itself.

Then there's the tiny little detail of us committing an act of war without any treaty ties or UN approval to justify it. What happens when Syria decides to declare war on us? They would be completely within their rights to do that. Then every act of what we now call terrorism would become legitimate acts committed in a war setting if they are behind them under the guise of sabotage, a legal tactic of warfare.

There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

All for what? To send a message that may or may not have any effect in a civil war that has no good guys in it as far as we are concerned. Everyone there hates us and would slit our throats in our sleep if given the chance. This whole misadventure is poisonous at several levels and the people advocating it are either complete and utter fools or are looking for some kickbacks somewhere down the line.
 
2013-09-06 03:29:16 PM

LasersHurt: You'd also make unfounded accusations against someone if they don't respect your "valuable" input, apparently.


If you ever tried to make a point, I'd refute it.  All you do is attack the points that others make by acting condescending and smug, hoping people will mistake that for intelligence.
 
2013-09-06 03:29:36 PM

Smackledorfer: be the right move for the wrong reasons.


maybe i'm just the neighborhood cynic, but that's typically the best i even try to hope for.
 
2013-09-06 03:30:26 PM

paygun: coeyagi: That certainly is at the forefront of my mind.  I mean, I've been told millions of times on Fark that I will do anything to defend my supposed messiah.

All you have to do to counter that is say that's it's possible that Barak Obama may not be an infallible living god that walks among us.


And you wouldn't get one Farker to disagree there.

//unless, of course, a certain narrative exists in certain minds, then of course, it's laughable to think that I don't fap to Obama every day.
 
2013-09-06 03:30:38 PM
This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.
 
2013-09-06 03:31:30 PM
a military strike that neutralizes Assads NBC weapons without giving advantage to the rebels? Only thing that can do that is orbiting a B2 with a nuclear payload aimed at Assad with orders to execute if anything goes down.
 
2013-09-06 03:31:36 PM

vernonFL: I think that before we do anything, we should take in some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees- give them asylum or help other countries like Jordan and Lebanon take care of them.


That's not BOB's style, man. BOB would rather let hundreds of thousands of Syrians die before even considering taking action.
 
2013-09-06 03:32:10 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: You'd also make unfounded accusations against someone if they don't respect your "valuable" input, apparently.

If you ever tried to make a point, I'd refute it.  All you do is attack the points that others make by acting condescending and smug, hoping people will mistake that for intelligence.


I posted because your "points" were ridiculous and unfounded. You postulate that extremists will take over. I don't think you have any support for that.

I'm not trying to make a point other than that I think yours is very wrong, and not founded on any solid evidence.

I'm sorry you think I'm being smug. I'll try harder not to insult your intelligence.
 
2013-09-06 03:33:58 PM
I don't understand how bombing Syria is supposed to hurt Assad.  I don't get the impression we're going to try to kill him personally, nor kill enough of his troops to make him lose the war.  Given that he just gassed a bunch of people, he's probably not a nice guy, so he's not going to sit up late at night grieving for whoever we wind up killing.
 
2013-09-06 03:34:04 PM

Smackledorfer: My point is we as a country were stupid as shiat to go after Iraq, and are now overreacting back the other way (which again I am still against action here, but am just speaking to public sentiment).


I think you're right that people, including me, are war weary and maybe overly skeptical at times, but when it comes to war, I'd much rather err on the side of caution than charging in with unclear clear goals, little knowledge of the groups we're supporting, and no clear picture of what the endgame looks like.
 
2013-09-06 03:35:34 PM
Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.
 
2013-09-06 03:36:31 PM
Why would we want to support the rebels?

All parties in this cluster fark are horrible pieces of shiat  and we have no clear proof of who did what.  I belive our great Community Organizer missed the  opportunity  for a limited strike and now has turned this into an unwinable debate.

Much like everything else he has touched.
 
2013-09-06 03:36:38 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.


It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.
 
2013-09-06 03:37:06 PM

coeyagi: And you wouldn't get one Farker to disagree there.


Well no, because they know they can't defend that.  So don't dare say Obama is the messiah, but also don't dare say something that implies that he's not.

I think the truth is that he's somewhere between comic book villain and messiah.  I know that's a pretty controversial thing to say here but most people here are lunatics so no big loss.
 
2013-09-06 03:37:18 PM

qorkfiend: Our stated objective is not "end the civil war", which is clearly what you are implying.


No but, in the words of John Kerry while speaking the the senate foreign relations committee it would be a "Collateral result". In other words it's a result that they know will happen thus they actually are picking sides in a civil war. Normally I'd be at least a little okay with that as there is usually one side that is at least marginally better than the other. Not in this case. Both sides are equally bad for different reasons.
 
2013-09-06 03:38:32 PM

GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.


"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.
 
2013-09-06 03:39:03 PM

ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.


No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.
 
2013-09-06 03:39:10 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.


The president says he has proof and the war will be quick and decisive.  His war hero SoS concurs.  Our commitment and casualties will be limited.  We don't have time for UN weapons inspectors.  The war will pay for itself.
 
2013-09-06 03:40:15 PM

vernonFL: I think that before we do anything, we should take in some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees- give them asylum or help other countries like Jordan and Lebanon take care of them.


We're already doing that, according to those helping the refugees, America and it's people are the largest contributors and have helped more than any other country. Like any other nation, we put our national interests first and act counter to our espoused founding beliefs upon occasion, but we are consistently at the top of the list when it comes to humanitarian contributions to those nations in need, in times of need.That is often over looked when people get on their "Murica is Bad!" soap box.
 
2013-09-06 03:40:42 PM

LasersHurt: Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."


Ok, i'll amend my previous statement...  Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing specifically with chemical weapons
 
2013-09-06 03:41:01 PM

vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.


And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...
 
2013-09-06 03:41:16 PM

Headso: LasersHurt: Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."

Ok, i'll amend my previous statement...  Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing specifically with chemical weapons


So it's the obtuse thing
 
2013-09-06 03:41:28 PM

netcentric: LasersHurt: CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.

I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens


Yes, because enlisted privates have so much access to what goes on at the JCoS
 
2013-09-06 03:41:32 PM

LasersHurt: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.

"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.


Well it is wrong now.
Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and he'll have it, so JUMP American lapdog, JUMP!
 
2013-09-06 03:42:18 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: LasersHurt: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.

"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.

Well it is wrong now.
Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and he'll have it, so JUMP American lapdog, JUMP!


This is the second-laziest.

"Let's make a list of anyone who might benefit... then accuse this of being a plot on their behalf!"
 
2013-09-06 03:42:52 PM

DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...


So BOB has officially endorsed al-Q and wants to send our Soldiers to help against the will of the American people?

Maybe the big announcement can be made next Wed!
 
2013-09-06 03:43:06 PM

Smackledorfer: imontheinternet: If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Otoh, look at France.  They favor action now, but were smartly against going into Iraq.  They didn't burn through all of their 'try and do some good enforcing international laws' political capital like Britain and the U.S.


Iraq owed them a ton of money.  That's why they didn't want to do anything.

And if chemical weapon use is a redlilne now, why wasn't it then?

/you gotta be deep in the tank for this administration to advocate for the pitiful mess we are about to create.
 
2013-09-06 03:43:07 PM

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: netcentric: LasersHurt: CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.

I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens

Yes, because enlisted privates have so much access to what goes on at the JCoS


You're joking, right?
The Pentagon doesn't want this pile of crap.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-sup po rt-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_stor y.html
 
2013-09-06 03:43:36 PM

paygun: coeyagi: And you wouldn't get one Farker to disagree there.

Well no, because they know they can't defend that.  So don't dare say Obama is the messiah, but also don't dare say something that implies that he's not.

I think the truth is that he's somewhere between comic book villain and messiah.  I know that's a pretty controversial thing to say here but most people here are lunatics so no big loss.


Facepalm.  Whatever gets your ire up, pal.  I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status.  No, wait, don't bother.  I know your answer: just read around Fark!  It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.

My answer: projection.  The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind.  Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?
 
2013-09-06 03:44:42 PM

DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...


... and install a democratic government when the war is over.
 
2013-09-06 03:45:16 PM

LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: LasersHurt: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.

"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.

Well it is wrong now.
Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and he'll have it, so JUMP American lapdog, JUMP!

This is the second-laziest.

"Let's make a list of anyone who might benefit... then accuse this of being a plot on their behalf!"


This shiat is NOT about one chemical attack.
If you think that, you're hopelessly naive, a pretty typically adolescent intellect.
 
2013-09-06 03:45:25 PM

coeyagi: Facepalm.  Whatever gets your ire up, pal.  I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status.  No, wait, don't bother.  I know your answer: just read around Fark!  It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.

My answer: projection.  The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind.  Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?


That's an awful lot of typing when you could have just pecked out "but Bush."
 
2013-09-06 03:46:29 PM

imontheinternet: ... and install a democratic government when the war is over


Nation building is okay when we do it!
 
2013-09-06 03:47:09 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: This shiat is NOT about one chemical attack.
If you think that, you're hopelessly naive, a pretty typically adolescent intellect.


"But it IS about whatever I say it's about, whether or not I offer any evidence. This is how I excercise my srs adult intellect (Serious adults namecall people who disagree with their unsupported assertions.)"
 
2013-09-06 03:47:19 PM

paygun: coeyagi: Facepalm.  Whatever gets your ire up, pal.  I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status.  No, wait, don't bother.  I know your answer: just read around Fark!  It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.

My answer: projection.  The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind.  Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?

That's an awful lot of typing when you could have just pecked out "but Bush."


I'll take that as "I agree with you because I couldn't actual mount a defense against it and went with the tried and derpy true 'But Bush' accusation, which actually is a viable defense because it explains a lot of butthurt and behavior by the GOP since 2009."

And it's greatly appreciated (smiles and blushing)!  Thanks!
 
2013-09-06 03:48:15 PM

paygun: imontheinternet: ... and install a democratic government when the war is over

Nation building is okay when we do it!


Your butthurt from creating a lost generation from 2001 - 2009 is truly a thing to behold.
 
2013-09-06 03:49:21 PM

vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.


All we know is anal sex was occurring.
 
2013-09-06 03:51:20 PM

coeyagi: I'll take that as "I agree with you because I couldn't actual mount a defense against it and went with the tried and derpy true 'But Bush' accusation, which actually is a viable defense because it explains a lot of butthurt and behavior by the GOP since 2009."

And it's greatly appreciated (smiles and blushing)!  Thanks!


loool
 
2013-09-06 03:52:40 PM

DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...


That's a development I hadn't seen. I had heard McCain wasn't happy with how it wasn't enough, but that the WH wants to swing the momentum will take more bombing for a longer time. It's looking more like Libya '11 and less like Libya '83.
 
2013-09-06 03:53:16 PM

imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.


If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.
 
2013-09-06 03:53:29 PM

Tenga: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

All we know is anal sex was occurring.


Yes. Our super fabulous intelligence anal-ists told us that was going down.
 
2013-09-06 03:54:37 PM
America is not ready for another blind date.
 
2013-09-06 03:55:02 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Matrix Flavored Wasabi: netcentric: LasersHurt: CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.

I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens

Yes, because enlisted privates have so much access to what goes on at the JCoS

You're joking, right?
The Pentagon doesn't want this pile of crap.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-sup po rt-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_stor y.html


What does this have to do with attacking the illogic of the post I responded to? Or really anything that I said?
 
2013-09-06 03:56:01 PM

Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.



International laws ban chemical weapons.  Of course, international law is largely fiction.  It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons.  Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved.  No one thinks it will solve the conflict.  All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle.  So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.
 
2013-09-06 03:56:26 PM

paygun: coeyagi: I'll take that as "I agree with you because I couldn't actual mount a defense against it and went with the tried and derpy true 'But Bush' accusation, which actually is a viable defense because it explains a lot of butthurt and behavior by the GOP since 2009."

And it's greatly appreciated (smiles and blushing)!  Thanks!

loool


So, what your saying is that you don't project a lot of crap that Bush did on Obama because you are ashamed of Bush's completely failed presidency, which, isn't something the LSM decided, it's something the historians decided as they have ranked him 33rd best president?  You're telling me you don't do that?  Aww, c'mon caterpillar, you know you do.  Let's not play coy, ladybug, you know you completely poop out nonsense rhetoric as a good footsoldier of Fox.  C'mon, butterfly, don't be shy. Who's a good shill!?!?! (shakes cheeks)  C'mon, who's a good SHILL?!??!! You are, little buddy!
 
2013-09-06 03:57:50 PM

bikerific: Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.


International laws ban chemical weapons.  Of course, international law is largely fiction.  It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons.  Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved.  No one thinks it will solve the conflict.  All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle.  So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.


This makes more sense than most of the "Obama is a war hawk" theories. If he was, he would have gotten in much earlier, not tried to push it back to "chemical weapons" which I'd guess he had hoped wouldn't come up.
 
2013-09-06 03:58:31 PM

LasersHurt: bikerific: Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.


International laws ban chemical weapons.  Of course, international law is largely fiction.  It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons.  Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved.  No one thinks it will solve the conflict.  All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle.  So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.

This makes more sense than most of the "Obama is a war hawk" theories. If he was, he would have gotten in much earlier, not tried to push it back to "chemical weapons" which I'd guess he had hoped wouldn't come up.


And he certainly would not have asked a hostile Congress for approval.
 
2013-09-06 03:58:38 PM

LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: This shiat is NOT about one chemical attack.
If you think that, you're hopelessly naive, a pretty typically adolescent intellect.

"But it IS about whatever I say it's about, whether or not I offer any evidence. This is how I excercise my srs adult intellect (Serious adults namecall people who disagree with their unsupported assertions.)"


If you don't have the sophistication to put the pieces together here, Putin, Obama, Assad, Bandar, then you  should just stop prattling. You probably believe World War One was about the Archduke's assassination.
It was about oil and the German navy converting their coal-fired ships to oil. The first British units into the field in World War I went into Iraq's port of Basra.
Study it out.
 
2013-09-06 03:59:35 PM

vygramul: imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.



(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."
 
2013-09-06 04:00:19 PM

bikerific: Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.


International laws ban chemical weapons.  Of course, international law is largely fiction.  It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons.  Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved.  No one thinks it will solve the conflict.  All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle.  So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.


That and that the Saudis and Israelis want to get this done.
 
2013-09-06 04:01:11 PM

vygramul: imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.


Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria."  The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-06 04:02:05 PM

Churchill2004: and leads to a democratic government in Syria.


Regime change. There it is.
And this is why Putin is so pissed: It means an Arab gas pipeline to Europe.
 
2013-09-06 04:03:02 PM
John Kerry: "We'll be greeted as liberators."
 
2013-09-06 04:03:14 PM

pmdgrwr: I guess Kerry is mad that Assad did not pic up the tab when they had dinner with their wives. If you fall for what they say about Syria and think we need to go to war to help Al Qaeda over throw Assad I have a bridge to sell to you, even comes with a on ramp to hope and change.


Um, are you having a stroke?  That is the only possible explanation I can think of for the gibberish that you typed out there...
 
2013-09-06 04:05:07 PM
Where are our brave Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth!  They'll accurately point out that John Kerry was only mildly heroic in Vietnam.
 
2013-09-06 04:06:43 PM
Honestly, though, what's the price of non-intervention?

If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Sometimes life hands you a dook sandwich, and the only way you're getting out of it is to hold your nose, choke it down as fast as you can, and gargle after.
 
2013-09-06 04:07:38 PM

vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?


it would be pretty funny if Assad moved all his chemical weapons into Iraq before we get around to launching any missiles
 
2013-09-06 04:08:23 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.


Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?
 
2013-09-06 04:08:37 PM

bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.


The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?
 
2013-09-06 04:09:09 PM
Carnival shell game!
 
2013-09-06 04:09:18 PM

Jackson Herring: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?

it would be pretty funny if Assad moved all his chemical weapons into Iraq before we get around to launching any missiles


1.bp.blogspot.com

How bout a little help here, brosef?
 
2013-09-06 04:09:27 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Honestly, though, what's the price of non-intervention?

If it comes out that Assad gassed his own people and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Sometimes life hands you a dook sandwich, and the only way you're getting out of it is to hold your nose, choke it down as fast as you can, and gargle after.


When you say "complicit" are you talking about the CIA report that was just released to show how we helped Saddam with his chemical attacks, because that one did not get much attention.
 
2013-09-06 04:09:34 PM

vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

That's a development I hadn't seen. I had heard McCain wasn't happy with how it wasn't enough, but that the WH wants to swing the momentum will take more bombing for a longer time. It's looking more like Libya '11 and less like Libya '83.


Wouldn't that actually make it more like Libya '11? NATO basically went in with the goal of carrying out their primary humanitarian mission in a way that did as much damage as possible to Gaddafi, and they accomplished that quite well.
 
2013-09-06 04:12:34 PM

Jackson Herring: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?

it would be pretty funny if Assad moved all his chemical weapons into Iraq before we get around to launching any missiles


WE FOUND THE WMDs!  CHENEY/RUMSFELD 2016!
 
2013-09-06 04:12:34 PM

coeyagi: So, what your saying is that you don't project a lot of crap that Bush did on Obama


Man it all just comes spilling out doesn't it?  How would anyone get this Obama messiah impression about you?
 
2013-09-06 04:12:42 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?


No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.
 
2013-09-06 04:13:09 PM

imontheinternet: Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria."  The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.


Okay, I was on the fence before but now I am totally against getting involved in Syria. This is a terrible idea.
 
2013-09-06 04:13:27 PM

DamnYankees: Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?


Let's call it the Obama Doctrine?
 
2013-09-06 04:13:30 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.


No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.
 
2013-09-06 04:13:59 PM
Start here at exactly ten minutes into the video.
History rhymes.
 
2013-09-06 04:14:49 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?


Yeah, if our real concern is atrocities and war crimes, we should take out about a dozen warlords in Africa before we even glance toward the Middle East.
 
2013-09-06 04:15:00 PM

Radioactive Ass: bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?


Waiting for evidence? That's crazy talk.
 
2013-09-06 04:15:51 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.


Well, we could kill him and most of his officers. That takes the fight out of people.

And it might deter other tinpot dictators in the future.

It also might not.

Again, shiat sandwich, no mustard. But saying, "not my problem!" becomes a problem when the rest of the world sees you as the last superpower.
 
2013-09-06 04:16:20 PM

odinsposse: imontheinternet: Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria."  The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.

Okay, I was on the fence before but now I am totally against getting involved in Syria. This is a terrible idea.


Yeah, that did the trick for me as well. fark this.
 
2013-09-06 04:16:22 PM
There are no "good guys" in the Syrian conflict.  Once you accept that your option set becomes much clearer.
 
2013-09-06 04:17:39 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.


His own people have been blowing his shiat up for over a year and it does not seem to deter him. I have no idea what our govt means when they say "we need to teach him a lesson" you cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. Assad will probably just react in an even more offensive fashion. Dictators don't tend to just back down.
 
2013-09-06 04:18:00 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

Well, we could kill him and most of his officers. That takes the fight out of people.

And it might deter other tinpot dictators in the future.

It also might not.

Again, shiat sandwich, no mustard. But saying, "not my problem!" becomes a problem when the rest of the world sees you as the last superpower.


And yet the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this either.
 
2013-09-06 04:18:11 PM

Churchill2004: vygramul: imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.


(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."



imontheinternet: vygramul: imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.

Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria."  The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.


Ah, ok, that's not quite the, "We're going to install a democratic government ourselves," I took that to mean. That's just hopeful hogwash.
 
2013-09-06 04:18:28 PM

Radioactive Ass: bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?



By the same token, what gives the rest of the world the right to intervene in Syria?

IIRC, Syria is not a signatory to any of the treaties banning chemical weapons.  Why would anyone have any authority to do anything?
 
2013-09-06 04:19:02 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

That's a development I hadn't seen. I had heard McCain wasn't happy with how it wasn't enough, but that the WH wants to swing the momentum will take more bombing for a longer time. It's looking more like Libya '11 and less like Libya '83.

Wouldn't that actually make it more like Libya '11? NATO basically went in with the goal of carrying out their primary humanitarian mission in a way that did as much damage as possible to Gaddafi, and they accomplished that quite well.


Isn't that what I said?
 
2013-09-06 04:19:09 PM
Assad thinks Putin is on his side in this.
Unfortunately for Assad, Putin is playing full-board chess and he's just a piece.
 
2013-09-06 04:20:09 PM

monoski: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

His own people have been blowing his shiat up for over a year and it does not seem to deter him. I have no idea what our govt means when they say "we need to teach him a lesson" you cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. Assad will probably just react in an even more offensive fashion. Dictators don't tend to just back down.


No, he absolutely has to die.

You don't win wars by warning your opponents.

That said, we don't have the political support for a real military action in this country. It's political suicide for Congress if they approve it, which may be Obama's gambit. He's a lame duck, and so he can spear Congress on Morton's Fork.
 
2013-09-06 04:20:19 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.


The coalition carrying out and supporting this intervention doesn't have to "control the world" in order to seriously dent the prospects of regimes thinking about using chemical weapons in the future. The intervention itself will go a long way towards adding to reinforcing the international norm and adding to the deterrence, and if played right it could result in large stockpiles of chemical weapons being secured and removed from the picture permanently.
 
2013-09-06 04:20:49 PM
This is Obama's Katrina.
 
2013-09-06 04:22:08 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

Well, we could kill him and most of his officers. That takes the fight out of people.

And it might deter other tinpot dictators in the future.

It also might not.

Again, shiat sandwich, no mustard. But saying, "not my problem!" becomes a problem when the rest of the world sees you as the last superpower.

And yet the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this either.


Well, Britain doesn't, but Saudi Arabia does. Who knows where others fall along that spectrum?

But in 10-15 years, you can bet your ass some kid in Damascus will think, "maybe my parents would be alive if the US had intervened when they could!" as he straps a bomb to his chest and approaches an embassy.
 
2013-09-06 04:22:09 PM

vygramul: Isn't that what I said?


That is indeed what you said; I read it backwards for some reason.
 
2013-09-06 04:22:44 PM
Why are people treating this choice of action vs. inaction as if these are the only two options on the table? This isn't a "yes/no" question, and Congress doesn't have to play this game.
 
2013-09-06 04:23:38 PM

bikerific: Radioactive Ass: bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?


By the same token, what gives the rest of the world the right to intervene in Syria?

IIRC, Syria is not a signatory to any of the treaties banning chemical weapons.  Why would anyone have any authority to do anything?


Um they signed unto the Geneva Protocol in 1968.
 
2013-09-06 04:24:37 PM

DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.


We (and Syria) are signatories on a treaty outlawing the use of chemical weapons. We know that chemical weapons were used since we had confirmation from multiple parties including Doctors Without Borders. We also have the ability to punish the Assad regime must like we did in the Balkans.

I always say that someone needs to be protesting any kind of military action. Even limited strikes will wind up killing people that are not the targets. However, there are times when force is necessary. The prohibition against these weapons was so strong that even the Axis in WWII didn't use them as common practice. If the international community refuses to act in this case, it may well be open season on any civilian uprisings in the future.
 
2013-09-06 04:25:50 PM

GameSprocket: We (and Syria) are signatories on a treaty outlawing the use of chemical weapons. We know that chemical weapons were used since we had confirmation from multiple parties including Doctors Without Borders. We also have the ability to punish the Assad regime must like we did in the Balkans.


Do any of those treaties give us the power to unliterally bomb a country for violating it?

You can't appeal to international law in support of bombing when international law makes it illegal for you to bomb.
 
2013-09-06 04:29:07 PM

odinsposse: This is a terrible idea.


Do ya think? It's a terrible idea on several levels. Lets start with it's breaking our own laws by helping the Al Qaeda infiltrated rebels. Link. The key part is providing "expert advice or assistance". Arming and training vetted rebel fighters is one thing. Attacking their enemy is entirely another. Keep in mind that there are, according to the office of the secretary of state themselves who warn in their own travel advisories in regards to Syria that there are rebel Al Qadea factions within the rebel forces. Link. Attacking Assad must, by definition, help ALL of the rebels including those who are AQ related. That is a direct violation of our own laws, laws which this very president has personally renewed. Link.
 
2013-09-06 04:30:16 PM

GameSprocket: If the international community refuses to act in this case, it may well be open season on any civilian uprisings in the future.


The international community did refuse to act now people want the us to act unilaterally.
 
2013-09-06 04:31:12 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Honestly, though, what's the price of non-intervention?

If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Sometimes life hands you a dook sandwich, and the only way you're getting out of it is to hold your nose, choke it down as fast as you can, and gargle after.


No, you heal it down the drain and forget that it ever happened.

//assuming a dook sandwich has beef.
 
2013-09-06 04:33:42 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: But in 10-15 years, you can bet your ass some kid in Damascus will think, "maybe my parents would be alive if the US had intervened when they could!" as he straps a bomb to his chest and approaches an embassy.


Conversely that very same kid may do that if his parents were killed by an American Tomahawk. It's a lot harder to get mad at someone who does nothing than than it is to be mad at someone who does something.
 
2013-09-06 04:36:09 PM

Radioactive Ass: odinsposse: This is a terrible idea.

Do ya think? It's a terrible idea on several levels. Lets start with it's breaking our own laws by helping the Al Qaeda infiltrated rebels. Link. The key part is providing "expert advice or assistance". Arming and training vetted rebel fighters is one thing. Attacking their enemy is entirely another. Keep in mind that there are, according to the office of the secretary of state themselves who warn in their own travel advisories in regards to Syria that there are rebel Al Qadea factions within the rebel forces. Link. Attacking Assad must, by definition, help ALL of the rebels including those who are AQ related. That is a direct violation of our own laws, laws which this very president has personally renewed. Link.


This reasoning is dubious, to say the least. When the US attacks al-Qaeda, for instance, are they unlawfully "helping" Shia terrorist groups that are also fighting al-Qaeda?
 
2013-09-06 04:36:15 PM

vygramul: Ah, ok, that's not quite the, "We're going to install a democratic government ourselves," I took that to mean. That's just hopeful hogwash.


Saying that the conflict ends when we have a peace treaty that establishes a democratic government is just a lawyerly way of saying Assad must surrender and be replaced by a pro-western (we hope) government.  Generally, there's an interim government appointed while plans are made for elections..
 
2013-09-06 04:36:40 PM

Fart_Machine: Um they signed unto the Geneva Protocol in 1968.


That protocol is regarding first use. There is some evidence that the rebels used Sarin back in March of this year. That means that the door was opened for Syria to do the same.
 
2013-09-06 04:36:53 PM
First, I am not advocating for it.

Second, Iraq had no wmd usage and none found. So the 'redline' can exist without the the same stance on Iraq and Syria.

Lastly, as with all things deterrance and enforcement, situational cost benefit exists. That goes for my views on enforcing international law as well as any given local criminal law.
 
2013-09-06 04:37:16 PM

Biological Ali: vygramul: Isn't that what I said?

That is indeed what you said; I read it backwards for some reason.


No worries. Happens to all of us.
 
2013-09-06 04:37:56 PM

Smackledorfer: Iraq had no wmd usage


What did they execute Saddam for again?
 
2013-09-06 04:39:15 PM

imontheinternet: vygramul: Ah, ok, that's not quite the, "We're going to install a democratic government ourselves," I took that to mean. That's just hopeful hogwash.

Saying that the conflict ends when we have a peace treaty that establishes a democratic government is just a lawyerly way of saying Assad must surrender and be replaced by a pro-western (we hope) government.  Generally, there's an interim government appointed while plans are made for elections..


Yeah - we just shouldn't be involved in this at all. Besides, all we ever seem to do is install a parliamentary system. Let someone else handle that.
 
2013-09-06 04:39:41 PM

Biological Ali: This reasoning is dubious, to say the least. When the US attacks al-Qaeda, for instance, are they unlawfully "helping" Shia terrorist groups that are also fighting al-Qaeda?


Yes. As I've said before you cannot wash your hands without getting both of them wet. However in your example there's nothing that says that we cannot attack both. In this case we are only proposing attacking one while not attacking the other. This is the difference.
 
2013-09-06 04:39:47 PM

The Muthaship: Smackledorfer: Iraq had no wmd usage

What did they execute Saddam for again?


A-holery?
 
2013-09-06 04:40:03 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Why are people treating this choice of action vs. inaction as if these are the only two options on the table? This isn't a "yes/no" question, and Congress doesn't have to play this game.


If we really want to stop chemical weapons from being used, we should sit down with the rebels, the government, and the Russians.and hammer out an agreement that prohibits the use of chemical weapons and provides an unbiased means for reporting and investigating their use, as well as trying and convicting the war criminals who use them.
 
2013-09-06 04:40:20 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: A-holery?


I think that's where they found him....
 
2013-09-06 04:41:22 PM
Just something else to think about for Syria.  The preferred option is a negotiated settlement where Assad goes away and the Syrians get a transitional government of some type.  The Russians have not been particularly supportive of this, but they might swing if there's support for them to pick up the bulk of peace keeping in Syria, instead of the US or NATO.  They get to keep the port and no Saudi pipeline, so the thinking (I understand) is that Putin might be talked into this.

The question then is:  would US bombing help or hinder that line?  Or maybe, is that line just a fevered imagining?

Cheers.
 
2013-09-06 04:43:15 PM

The Muthaship: Smackledorfer: Iraq had no wmd usage

What did they execute Saddam for again?


I am not interested in trying to guess at your argument. I don't play that game. Feel free to make an argument if want a response.
 
2013-09-06 04:44:09 PM

vygramul: imontheinternet: vygramul: Ah, ok, that's not quite the, "We're going to install a democratic government ourselves," I took that to mean. That's just hopeful hogwash.

Saying that the conflict ends when we have a peace treaty that establishes a democratic government is just a lawyerly way of saying Assad must surrender and be replaced by a pro-western (we hope) government.  Generally, there's an interim government appointed while plans are made for elections..

Yeah - we just shouldn't be involved in this at all. Besides, all we ever seem to do is install a parliamentary system. Let someone else handle that.


Yep, and (again generally speaking) the wide array of rebel groups break into 60 or so political parties, with 59 varying degrees of moderates and one unified islamist party.  Egypt knows a thing or two about that.
 
2013-09-06 04:44:30 PM

Smackledorfer: The Muthaship: Smackledorfer: Iraq had no wmd usage

What did they execute Saddam for again?

I am not interested in trying to guess at your argument. I don't play that game. Feel free to make an argument if want a response.


Gassing the Kurds.
 
2013-09-06 04:46:56 PM

Radioactive Ass: Biological Ali: This reasoning is dubious, to say the least. When the US attacks al-Qaeda, for instance, are they unlawfully "helping" Shia terrorist groups that are also fighting al-Qaeda?

Yes. As I've said before you cannot wash your hands without getting both of them wet. However in your example there's nothing that says that we cannot attack both. In this case we are only proposing attacking one while not attacking the other. This is the difference.


The US military already has an open-ended authorization to attack al-Qaeda anywhere in the world. They don't need a separate resolution to go after them in Syria - that would be redundant.
 
2013-09-06 04:49:54 PM

Radioactive Ass: Fart_Machine: Um they signed unto the Geneva Protocol in 1968.

That protocol is regarding first use. There is some evidence that the rebels used Sarin back in March of this year. That means that the door was opened for Syria to do the same.


Do you have a citation on that?  I've never read anything regarding that it's OK to use them on civilians if the other guy does first.
 
2013-09-06 04:52:15 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: Just something else to think about for Syria.  The preferred option is a negotiated settlement where Assad goes away and the Syrians get a transitional government of some type.  The Russians have not been particularly supportive of this, but they might swing if there's support for them to pick up the bulk of peace keeping in Syria, instead of the US or NATO.  They get to keep the port and no Saudi pipeline, so the thinking (I understand) is that Putin might be talked into this.

The question then is:  would US bombing help or hinder that line?  Or maybe, is that line just a fevered imagining?

Cheers.


Putin doesn't care so much about Assad as he wants a stable government that's friendly to Russia.
 
2013-09-06 04:54:32 PM

Biological Ali: The US military already has an open-ended authorization to attack al-Qaeda anywhere in the world. They don't need a separate resolution to go after them in Syria - that would be redundant.


Yet I have seen no evidence of them doing so, or planning to do so, anywhere in Syria. Even when they know who they are and (I assume) where they are. Why? Because at the moment they are fighting the man who they want out, While I can see the twisted logic behind that there comes a point where helping by doing nothing is probably not a bad thing at the moment (letting them kill each other) but any active assistance, no matter how small or large is still illogical and illegal to boot.
 
2013-09-06 04:57:59 PM

Radioactive Ass: Biological Ali: The US military already has an open-ended authorization to attack al-Qaeda anywhere in the world. They don't need a separate resolution to go after them in Syria - that would be redundant.

Yet I have seen no evidence of them doing so, or planning to do so, anywhere in Syria. Even when they know who they are and (I assume) where they are. Why? Because at the moment they are fighting the man who they want out, While I can see the twisted logic behind that there comes a point where helping by doing nothing is probably not a bad thing at the moment (letting them kill each other) but any active assistance, no matter how small or large is still illogical and illegal to boot.


It's not illegal at all. The 2001 AUMF authorizes the president to go after Al Qaeda, at his discretion, anywhere in the world. In fact, Obama could simply state that he considers Assad part of the Al Qaeda support system and attack him. Congress' ceding of power was that absolute, and that farking retarded.
 
2013-09-06 05:04:01 PM

bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons.


Then why does the USA have them?
 
2013-09-06 05:04:55 PM

Fart_Machine: Brian_of_Nazareth: Just something else to think about for Syria.  The preferred option is a negotiated settlement where Assad goes away and the Syrians get a transitional government of some type.  The Russians have not been particularly supportive of this, but they might swing if there's support for them to pick up the bulk of peace keeping in Syria, instead of the US or NATO.  They get to keep the port and no Saudi pipeline, so the thinking (I understand) is that Putin might be talked into this.

The question then is:  would US bombing help or hinder that line?  Or maybe, is that line just a fevered imagining?

Cheers.

Putin doesn't care so much about Assad as he wants a stable government that's friendly to Russia.


Quite true.  The problem comes down to finding a replacement for Assad the Russians can live with and so can a majority of the Syrian people.  No-one stands out that I'm aware of.

Cheers.
 
2013-09-06 05:05:26 PM

Fart_Machine: Do you have a citation on that? I've never read anything regarding that it's OK to use them on civilians if the other guy does first.


The Geneva Protocol says it:

"the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons.". Wiki link. Be sure to read the Historical Assessment section. As to using them on civilians the area being hit was a rebel stronghold according to news reports so any civilian casualties would be collateral damage. I know that that sounds callous, and it is, and it doesn't make me happy to say it. But that's just a fact of modern warfare.

Look, I'm not advocating their use by anyone but it's been long established that once one side uses WMD of any type the other side is allowed to use them too in retaliation. The MAD doctrine is firmly based in this concept and it has no time limit other than some sort of peace agreement or armistice between the parties that halts their use.
 
2013-09-06 05:07:38 PM

Biological Ali: Radioactive Ass: Biological Ali: This reasoning is dubious, to say the least. When the US attacks al-Qaeda, for instance, are they unlawfully "helping" Shia terrorist groups that are also fighting al-Qaeda?

Yes. As I've said before you cannot wash your hands without getting both of them wet. However in your example there's nothing that says that we cannot attack both. In this case we are only proposing attacking one while not attacking the other. This is the difference.

The US military already has an open-ended authorization to attack al-Qaeda anywhere in the world. They don't need a separate resolution to go after them in Syria - that would be redundant.


It's important to emphasize how small a role al Qaeda plays in all or any of these realpolitikal calculations.
They are simply the cost of doing business wherever they ooze from the mud.
 
2013-09-06 05:09:36 PM

vygramul: In fact, Obama could simply state that he considers Assad part of the Al Qaeda support system and attack him.


Except that out here in the real world, al Caca is fighting against Assad with the motivating idea of establishing an Islamic state in Syria.
 
2013-09-06 05:10:25 PM

DamnYankees: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

The part where we somehow manage to do so much damage to Assad that he won't ever think about using weapons he thinks he needs to win, but somehow at the exact same time not do enough damage to reduce his odds of actually winning.


We can't know this utterly absured claim is false!

/Want some tea? The pot is just past Mars.
 
2013-09-06 05:14:03 PM

vygramul: It's not illegal at all. The 2001 AUMF authorizes the president to go after Al Qaeda, at his discretion, anywhere in the world. In fact, Obama could simply state that he considers Assad part of the Al Qaeda support system and attack him. Congress' ceding of power was that absolute, and that farking retarded.


The AUMF does not allow for knowingly giving assistance to them. The resolution specifically states that one of the goals is to get Assad out of there. This is also the goal of the AQ forces. If it were merely one or two guys or even one or two units I could overlook it for now. But it's not. News reports have them numbering in the thousands, controlling large swaths of the country and have them killing the types of rebels we actually do like to the point that some of them are fleeing to Turkey. Anything that we do will be helping them and it's one of the main reasons why I'm firmly against this action.
 
2013-09-06 05:15:39 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.


Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.
 
2013-09-06 05:15:41 PM

Evil High Priest: imontheinternet: The Bestest: imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Mission creep is certainly a concern of mine as well, but even then the cost of inaction still outweighs it in my mind.

Given Assad's momentum in the war, if we do nothing the rebels will likely be defeated and the situation will change from a full on civil war to a smaller scale insurgency. controlled massacre.


No, the rebels are the genocidists.
 
2013-09-06 05:17:13 PM

Radioactive Ass: Yet I have seen no evidence of them doing so, or planning to do so, anywhere in Syria.


Sure, but there's no law that says they can't prioritize which enemies the US can deal with at which times (even if we grant for the sake of argument that the US has some intelligence on al-Qaeda in Syria that it isn't acting on). Under the interpretation you seem to be going with, any attack that didn't involve in the US hitting all mutually opposed enemies at the same time with equal force would result in them illegally "helping" the one that suffered the least damage within a given time frame. That just isn't anywhere near how these principles are actually understood and applied.
 
2013-09-06 05:17:32 PM
Who was it who was pushing Kerry over Rice? The name is on the tip of my tongue. Mc-something. McDonalds? No, that can't be right. I'm sure it will come to me eventually.
 
2013-09-06 05:18:06 PM

Radioactive Ass: Fart_Machine: Do you have a citation on that? I've never read anything regarding that it's OK to use them on civilians if the other guy does first.

The Geneva Protocol says it:

"the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons.". Wiki link. Be sure to read the Historical Assessment section. As to using them on civilians the area being hit was a rebel stronghold according to news reports so any civilian casualties would be collateral damage. I know that that sounds callous, and it is, and it doesn't make me happy to say it. But that's just a fact of modern warfare.

Look, I'm not advocating their use by anyone but it's been long established that once one side uses WMD of any type the other side is allowed to use them too in retaliation. The MAD doctrine is firmly based in this concept and it has no time limit other than some sort of peace agreement or armistice between the parties that halts their use.


Fair enough.  So in other words it's generally useless even if the initial Rebel attack is never confirmed.
 
2013-09-06 05:18:18 PM

DeaH: Who was it who was pushing Kerry over Rice? The name is on the tip of my tongue. Mc-something. McDonalds? No, that can't be right. I'm sure it will come to me eventually.


You think the mouthpiece is the problem?
 
2013-09-06 05:18:20 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: But in 10-15 years, you can bet your ass some kid in Damascus will think, "maybe my parents would be alive if the US had intervened when they could!" as he straps a bomb to his chest and approaches an embassy.


"They will greet us as liberators" version 2.0.
 
2013-09-06 05:18:56 PM
It's just amazing to me that the secretary of state is going after and advocating military action as the FIRST resort.

WTF.
This all stinks.
 
2013-09-06 05:20:18 PM
He also voted for the Iraq war, so at least he's not a flipflipper.
 
2013-09-06 05:20:33 PM

GoldSpider: Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.


It's been that way for almost a century.  It's just that in the cases where gas has been used in the past we just chose to ignore it.
 
2013-09-06 05:21:35 PM

GoldSpider: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.

Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.


I don't get it either.
 
2013-09-06 05:22:09 PM
Gas is just so unsporting.
 
2013-09-06 05:22:59 PM

Radioactive Ass: Fart_Machine: Do you have a citation on that? I've never read anything regarding that it's OK to use them on civilians if the other guy does first.

The Geneva Protocol says it:

"the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons.". Wiki link. Be sure to read the Historical Assessment section. As to using them on civilians the area being hit was a rebel stronghold according to news reports so any civilian casualties would be collateral damage. I know that that sounds callous, and it is, and it doesn't make me happy to say it. But that's just a fact of modern warfare.

Look, I'm not advocating their use by anyone but it's been long established that once one side uses WMD of any type the other side is allowed to use them too in retaliation. The MAD doctrine is firmly based in this concept and it has no time limit other than some sort of peace agreement or armistice between the parties that halts their use.


It would seem that the Protocol itself doesn't explicitly make this allowance, but many signatories to it separately reserve the right to respond in kind if attacked first. So it would seem that it's a subjective thing, and not some hard-coded loophole that applies regardless of context.

And again, I'd like to reiterate that not even the people accusing the rebels of carrying out the Aleppo incident (which include Syria and Russia) are making the "respond in kind" argument, likely because they know it's a non-starter.
 
2013-09-06 05:23:50 PM

CynicalLA: GoldSpider: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.

Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.

I don't get it either.


Chemical weapons cause xtra-sufferingtm, creates a bad precedent that excuses future use, and leaves residue behind.

That's why there's a zero-tolerance policy towards it.
 
2013-09-06 05:24:52 PM

Biological Ali: It would seem that the Protocol itself doesn't explicitly make this allowance, but many signatories to it separately reserve the right to respond in kind if attacked first. So it would seem that it's a subjective thing, and not some hard-coded loophole that applies regardless of context.


To be fair most of the international protocols have never been hard-coded and were overlooked when it was politically expedient.
 
2013-09-06 05:25:12 PM

Biological Ali: Sure, but there's no law that says they can't prioritize which enemies the US can deal with at which times (even if we grant for the sake of argument that the US has some intelligence on al-Qaeda in Syria that it isn't acting on). Under the interpretation you seem to be going with, any attack that didn't involve in the US hitting all mutually opposed enemies at the same time with equal force would result in them illegally "helping" the one that suffered the least damage within a given time frame. That just isn't anywhere near how these principles are actually understood and applied.


My understanding of the current situation is that at the moment the rebels are losing and that any military actions by us would mainly serve to tip that balance in their favor. Knowing that there is a substantial AQ element in Syria amongst the rebels according to our own state departments reports and advisories I don't see how in good conscious  we can do something that any fool can see would help them.
 
2013-09-06 05:26:25 PM

Rapmaster2000: Where are our brave Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth!  They'll accurately point out that John Kerry was only mildly heroic in Vietnam.


He's making up for it now, you see, by helping increase U.S. exports of democracy.

All Hail The New American Century!
 
2013-09-06 05:27:19 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

Well, we could kill him and most of his officers. That takes the fight out of people.

And it might deter other tinpot dictators in the future.

It also might not.

Again, shiat sandwich, no mustard. But saying, "not my problem!" becomes a problem when the rest of the world sees you as the last superpower.

And yet the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this either.

Well, Britain doesn't, but Saudi Arabia does. Who knows where others fall along that spectrum?

But in 10-15 years, you can bet your ass some kid in Damascus will think, "maybe my parents would be alive if the US had intervened when they could!" as he straps a bomb to his chest and approaches an embassy.


Or...

"Maybe my parents would still be alive if the US hadn't started bombing shiat here..."

Only one of these scenarios is backed up by reality and history. Can you pick which one?
 
2013-09-06 05:30:59 PM
"Putin escalated concerns about the fallout from any strike when he indicated in an interview published Wednesday that his country could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks.

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike."



So instead of deterrence as Kerry claims, they'll get new toys PLUS a missile shield to give them even less of a reason to be deterred by airstrikes. Nice work Kerry. Thanks Obama.
 
2013-09-06 05:31:56 PM
"Your USS New Jersey killed my family."
 
2013-09-06 05:32:06 PM

super_grass: CynicalLA: GoldSpider: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.

Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.

I don't get it either.

Chemical weapons cause xtra-sufferingtm, creates a bad precedent that excuses future use, and leaves residue behind.

That's why there's a zero-tolerance policy towards it.


So you can completely wipe out as many people as you want.  As long as you don't use chemical weapons.  Still sounds ridiculous.
 
2013-09-06 05:32:26 PM

Fart_Machine: Fair enough. So in other words it's generally useless even if the initial Rebel attack is never confirmed.


More or less where civil wars are concerned. However if the reports that they did use them first are to be believed then it's just another nail in the coffin as to we shouldn't get involved.

Biological Ali: And again, I'd like to reiterate that not even the people accusing the rebels of carrying out the Aleppo incident (which include Syria and Russia) are making the "respond in kind" argument, likely because they know it's a non-starter.


Not mentioning it versus it not entering into their calculus are two different things.
 
2013-09-06 05:34:23 PM

CynicalLA: super_grass: CynicalLA: GoldSpider: Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If it comes out that Assad gassed his own peopl and capable nations did nothing, we will be seen as complicit.

Is this the rule for all violence now? The United States is complicit in every murder or violent act we don't directly intervene to stop?

No, it's a matter of scale. The US military is too big to use on murder.

But a nation using WMDs? That's different. We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

I'm not saying it is right that we should be the world police. But you deal with the reality you have.

Been reading this all week. Killing one hundred thousand people with guns and bombs is OK, but one thousand with gas is not.

I don't get it either.

Chemical weapons cause xtra-sufferingtm, creates a bad precedent that excuses future use, and leaves residue behind.

That's why there's a zero-tolerance policy towards it.

So you can completely wipe out as many people as you want.  As long as you don't use chemical weapons.  Still sounds ridiculous.


They're trying to sell drones and precision strikes as something that would beat down Assad's forces and destroy the chemical weapons with a minimum of collateral damage. So the "sacrifice" made by these civilians are worth it.

Plus, most importantly, no Americans will be harmed in the process.
 
2013-09-06 05:35:11 PM
I don't know the right thing to do.  I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.
 
2013-09-06 05:37:35 PM

Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do.  I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.


Just a wild guess... you voted for this one and not the last.
 
2013-09-06 05:38:22 PM

Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do.  I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.


It's a good thing Obama got international consensus, because he's such a citizen of the world that gets along with everyone, about what the plan of action would be if chemical weapons were used in Syria. I'm glad he did the right thing so we're not totally isolated on the issue and completely at odds with a major foreign power.

/time machine
 
2013-09-06 05:39:05 PM

Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do.  I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.


That faith couldn't possibly be based on anything he's said in the last two weeks.
 
2013-09-06 05:42:43 PM

Radioactive Ass: Not mentioning it versus it not entering into their calculus are two different things.


An attack is imminent and just about all of the relevant parties, including them, are resigned to the reality that whoever carried out this attack is very likely going to get hit, regardless of what went on first. This is why, in the face of mounting evidence that they did do it, the Syrian regime is still grasping at straws by pretending they didn't, rather than even thinking aloud about this novel "respond in kind" argument.
 
2013-09-06 05:43:13 PM

GoldSpider: Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do.  I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.

That faith couldn't possibly be based on anything he's said in the last two weeks.


Yeah, right?
I have no faith in this president. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Just the fact that's he's coming out of the gate all war-mongerly just confirms my worst fears of the man.
But, but ... The Lilly Ledbetter Act!
What a crock of poop.

Stooge, stooge, stooge. Just like the Bushes.
 
2013-09-06 05:44:02 PM
Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?
 
2013-09-06 05:47:01 PM

machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?


Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.
 
2013-09-06 05:52:24 PM

Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.


But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before
 
2013-09-06 05:54:26 PM

machoprogrammer: But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before


I'm guessing because of how much easier it is to indiscriminately slaughter people with chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-06 05:55:52 PM

The Muthaship: DeaH: Who was it who was pushing Kerry over Rice? The name is on the tip of my tongue. Mc-something. McDonalds? No, that can't be right. I'm sure it will come to me eventually.

You think the mouthpiece is the problem?


No. Just 80% of the problem.
 
2013-09-06 05:57:04 PM

Biological Ali: An attack is imminent and just about all of the relevant parties, including them, are resigned to the reality that whoever carried out this attack is very likely going to get hit, regardless of what went on first. This is why, in the face of mounting evidence that they did do it, the Syrian regime is still grasping at straws by pretending they didn't, rather than even thinking aloud about this novel "respond in kind" argument.


What "Mounting evidence"? Has the UN report been released? The evidence we have saying that it was Assad comes from the very same people who said that Saddam was running an active WMD program. Lets not forget that that "Intelligence" was used by two very different presidents, albeit in different ways. I've said this before, it's my opinion that Bush didn't knowingly lie but that he relied on intelligence information and assessments that were bad. Just like Clinton did. The main difference between the two was that Clinton treated terrorism more as a law issue (see how he responded to the USS Cole attack for a very good example of this) while Bush, after 9/11, treated it as an act of war issue.
 
2013-09-06 05:57:26 PM
I am the libbiest lib who has ever libbed.

That said:  If this is not a kill shot, to end the civil war in Syria, then a "few missles" will fark things up worse then we can ever imagine.
 
2013-09-06 06:01:05 PM

The Muthaship: Smackledorfer: The Muthaship: Smackledorfer: Iraq had no wmd usage

What did they execute Saddam for again?

I am not interested in trying to guess at your argument. I don't play that game. Feel free to make an argument if want a response.

Gassing the Kurds.


And?
We were speaking about reasons to invade/attack a country.

Was the recent assault on Iraq based on gassing the kurds? It wasn't? Well how about that, you tried to completely move those goalposts.

Or if shifting the conversation away from your previously failing points was not your intent, stop writing three word sentence fragments to make your argument.

With how complex geopolitics are, why the hell do people think they can be discussed with a three word fragment of a sentence?
 
2013-09-06 06:01:05 PM

machoprogrammer: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.

But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before


Because chemical weapons kill the people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

It's the same reasoning that went into the international ban of the neutron bomb.
 
2013-09-06 06:06:12 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: "Your USS New Jersey killed my family."


And that's which el presidente, Mister Smarty?
 
2013-09-06 06:08:01 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: GoldSpider: Soup4Bonnie: I don't know the right thing to do.  I have more faith in this President to do the right thing moreso than the last one.

That faith couldn't possibly be based on anything he's said in the last two weeks.

Yeah, right?
I have no faith in this president. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Just the fact that's he's coming out of the gate all war-mongerly just confirms my worst fears of the man.
But, but ... The Lilly Ledbetter Act!
What a crock of poop.

Stooge, stooge, stooge. Just like the Bushes.


Well, at least the odds of him whipping off his cowboy hat and screaming yeeeeehhaaawwwwwww just after he orders the drones to double tap some first responders are pretty low.

Progress.
 
2013-09-06 06:09:13 PM

udhq: machoprogrammer: Biological Ali: machoprogrammer: Have they even proven the weapons were used by Assad?

I don't get why he would use them... they were crushing the rebels, why use the one weapon that would piss off the world?

Because his regime was trying to retake the suburbs around Damascus and was having a very hard time doing it by conventional means? The rebels weren't winning by any stretch by the wasn't "crushing" them either.

But why would be use chemical weapons rather than indiscriminately slaughter those same people? It isn't like he was above doing that before

Because chemical weapons kill the people, but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact.

It's the same reasoning that went into the international ban of the neutron bomb.


And buildings without people would just be weird.
 
2013-09-06 06:14:34 PM

udhq: It's the same reasoning that went into the international ban of the neutron bomb.


There is no such ban.
 
2013-09-06 06:22:00 PM

Radioactive Ass: What "Mounting evidence"? Has the UN report been released?


The UN investigation doesn't have any mandate to say who is responsible for the attack, so any references about how it hasn't been released yet are a red herring. The most the report will do is confirm that an attack did indeed place (which everybody already knows), and corroborate a few details being cited by the several countries that have already concluded that Assad was responsible.

The UK, the US, France and Germany (in roughly that order) have all concluded separately that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack. Nobody (not even China or Russia) have made any serious allegations that anybody else was responsible, they're just weakly questioning the degree of certainty. It's basically the international relations equivalent of "But you can't prove that God doesn't exist" - not that it's all that surprising for them to be saying this, given that their position is based not on genuine skepticism but rather other political concerns.
 
2013-09-06 06:33:51 PM
What's Austro-Hungary's position on Assad?
 
2013-09-06 06:35:36 PM

Biological Ali: The UN investigation doesn't have any mandate to say who is responsible for the attack, so any references about how it hasn't been released yet are a red herring. The most the report will do is confirm that an attack did indeed place (which everybody already knows), and corroborate a few details being cited by the several countries that have already concluded that Assad was responsible.

The UK, the US, France and Germany (in roughly that order) have all concluded separately that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack. Nobody (not even China or Russia) have made any serious allegations that anybody else was responsible, they're just weakly questioning the degree of certainty. It's basically the international relations equivalent of "But you can't prove that God doesn't exist" - not that it's all that surprising for them to be saying this, given that their position is based not on genuine skepticism but rather other political concerns.


The UN report will at a minimum tell us the components of the chemicals used. That will be a pretty good indicator of who manufactured it at a minimum. Right now we don't even know that at the moment.

As to taking account of other nations assessments go they also thought that WMD was present in Iraq. Intel can just be wrong sometimes. No malice or incompetence required, just good people coming to the wrong conclusions due to bad assumptions on their part.
 
2013-09-06 06:36:32 PM

Biological Ali: It's basically the international relations equivalent of "But you can't prove that God doesn't exist"


I would bet a beer that the NRO has real-time video of the attack, plus still pictures, and the NSA has recordings of the battlefield command and control orders.
That's not the same as arguing about the existence of God.
 
2013-09-06 07:04:11 PM
That technique worked for Iraq II. People bought the entire shiat sandwich of lies.
 
2013-09-06 07:17:01 PM
Only because I haven't seen it said yet (apologies if I missed the comment), here's my $0.02:

Since his first term, everything President Obama has done has been calculated. Healthcare, LGBT rights, and even marijuana policies, have been given to the people and the courts to decide. Attacking Syria is no different.

President Obama is playing the GOP like a fiddle.

The GOP, the supposed (and self-anointed) military spine of the nation, was humiliated by a Democratic president killing bin Laden.

Now? The same GOP that campaigned on "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and "Benghazi (jazz hands)," is opposing bombing of brown Muslim people because of ... Obama. In reality, the GOP wants to bomb Syria into a crater, but Obama is now leaving it to Congress ...as the GOP has asked.

End game:
* Democrats split on Syria.. but everyone expected that anyway, and,
* GOP votes against Obama in the house, and filibusters the Senate, because.... Obama. However, this also alienates the GOP's redneck warmonger support.

Obama gets to walk away saying "I tried... but the GOP doesn't want to take military action.
Democrats win. GOP loses... again.

In the off-chance that Congress authorizes a strike, Obama once again comes out as a strong military leader, AND a rational man of the people.

IMHO, Obama's presidency has been about having situations come to a final resolution, not about breaking more vases.
 
2013-09-06 07:29:20 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.


Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.
 
2013-09-06 07:41:04 PM

GoldSpider: HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.

Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.


To be honest there will be buildings knocked down if a neutron bomb is used. It still is a nuclear bomb after all. The main difference is that the energy is mostly expended in a neutron flux instead of pressure and heat. The explosion however would be measured in a few kilotons instead of megatons.
 
2013-09-06 07:50:14 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: IMHO, Obama's presidency has been about having situations come to a final resolution, not about breaking more vases.


That's pretty wacky.
But perhaps a bit optimistic for my taste.
I'm afraid Obama has been in over his head since the beginning. Congress walks on him regularly.
He's disappointed his left base. His attorney general has prosecuted more whistleblowers than the past three prezzies combined. Drone killings. Gitmo is indefinite. Now this Syria derangement with Kerry leading the rhythm section on the war drums. It's madness.

Now Putin is poking at him with a sharp stick and there's no telling what he'll do.
He seems to be implying that he'll bomb without congress' consent because, you know, he's the decider.
Bombing Syria will be political suicide because the American people are farking sick of permawar and don't care about his tiny ballsack issues. Putin wants control of Syria to prevent an Arab pipeline and so far, Putin has been snubbing and playing Obama like a carp.

Obama is in check and unless he cowboys up, he's going to be a laughing stock at home and abroad. That's the biggest reason he'll do some cruise missiles -- to save face and Putin will probably be OK with that. Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and Obama is on notice. King Obama is in check between Queen Obama and Bishop Bandar. Assad is a pawn in this.
 
2013-09-06 07:51:17 PM
/Queen PUTIN.
doh.
 
2013-09-06 08:01:09 PM

Radioactive Ass: GoldSpider: HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.

Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.

To be honest there will be buildings knocked down if a neutron bomb is used. It still is a nuclear bomb after all. The main difference is that the energy is mostly expended in a neutron flux instead of pressure and heat. The explosion however would be measured in a few kilotons instead of megatons.


They really misnamed it. Rather then Enhanced Radiation bomb, which got everyone in a tizzy, they should have named it the Reduced Blast bomb and let everyone cheer its improvement.
 
2013-09-06 08:07:43 PM

Wake Up Sheeple: In the off-chance that Congress authorizes a strike, Obama once again comes out as a strong military leader, AND a rational man of the people.


And what about if he doesn't get approval and he decides to strike anyway? He hasn't yet completely backed off of his declaration that he already has the authority to do so even when asked. I would hope that he will follow the will of congress but while the Senate may sign off on it (as it appears right now that they will) the House is an entirely different animal. All of the anecdotal evidence is that the Representatives are getting calls from their constituents overwhelmingly against a yes vote. And when I say overwhelmingly I mean somewhere in the range of 95 out of 100 calls are against. Let's not forget that they are all up for re-election and anyone who votes against a huge amount of their constituents known wishes is just asking to be sent home next November. Getting 217 of them to vote yes may be a stretch.
 
2013-09-06 09:08:36 PM
The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.
 
2013-09-06 09:46:39 PM

netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.


You're right, but that's western thinking. We give and receive threats all the time, talking big is part of our culture. In those cultures, such an explicit threat counts almost as much as the action itself. Our overseas assets are already more at risk because of this monumental blunder.
 
2013-09-06 09:52:40 PM
Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?

i.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
2013-09-06 10:09:04 PM

USP .45: netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.

You're right, but that's western thinking. We give and receive threats all the time, talking big is part of our culture. In those cultures, such an explicit threat counts almost as much as the action itself. Our overseas assets are already more at risk because of this monumental blunder.


Monumental blunder? Is that just partisan derp?
 
2013-09-06 10:19:05 PM

Radioactive Ass: GoldSpider: HotIgneous Intruder: And buildings without people would just be weird.

Yeah, if you're going to go to the trouble to kill a few thousand of your own citizens, at least have the decency to knock a few buildings down in the process.

To be honest there will be buildings knocked down if a neutron bomb is used. It still is a nuclear bomb after all. The main difference is that the energy is mostly expended in a neutron flux instead of pressure and heat. The explosion however would be measured in a few kilotons instead of megatons.


I heard it's a BLAST

www.patric-wolf.eu
 
2013-09-06 10:32:21 PM

netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.


US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.
 
2013-09-06 10:38:48 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.


US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.
 
2013-09-06 10:50:40 PM

CynicalLA: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.

US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.


One other point. Americans and a lot of other first world nation have benefited from this policy. Supporting oppressive regimes has kept prices low and that's something most Americans don't acknowledge.
 
2013-09-06 10:59:18 PM

CynicalLA: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:  US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.

US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.


Realpolitik is the perfect description, the US stopped using carrots (excepts for the Saudis) a long time ago and found the biggest stick.

The US has long coveted Syria, GW even gave them an honorary mention in his Axis of Evil.  Unfortunately it looks like the White House propaganda campaign is taking hold, one poll has public support up to 30%.  Putin has a few surprises for Obama if he is stupid enough to carry through.
 
2013-09-06 11:08:28 PM

kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.


I still have a feeling he isn't really trying because he is just trolling the GOP because now they are the ones in the position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. We won't find out for sure until they actually vote on it.
 
2013-09-06 11:11:56 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: CynicalLA: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:  US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.

US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.

Realpolitik is the perfect description, the US stopped using carrots (excepts for the Saudis) a long time ago and found the biggest stick.

The US has long coveted Syria, GW even gave them an honorary mention in his Axis of Evil.  Unfortunately it looks like the White House propaganda campaign is taking hold, one poll has public support up to 30%.  Putin has a few surprises for Obama if he is stupid enough to carry through.


It could turn into the biggest clusterfark ever. I'm sure russIa(Putin) has something planned if we attack. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia has a lot invested in Syria.
 
2013-09-06 11:43:40 PM

CynicalLA: CynicalLA: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: netcentric: The US would be mindless to launch any strikes.   It would be mindless policy, I should say.

But if they do... I hope they spend the next week or two bulking up security around our bases and Embassies.
We will get hit eventually,  if we bomb them.

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been mindless for 50+ years, I wouldn't expect it to change now.

US foreign policy for the Middle East has always been Realpolitik.

One other point. Americans and a lot of other first world nation have benefited from this policy. Supporting oppressive regimes has kept prices low and that's something most Americans don't acknowledge.


True as well, and Europe will benefit even more if the US can bring Syria into the fold.  But I think most of Europe is afraid to get behind the US because plans could go awry.  Gazprom might have an 'unexpected' shortage in store for some of the EU warmongers this winter.

US objectives in the ME make perfect sense from a practical view, India, China, and others are hungry for more of the energy pie and America wants to assure itself the biggest piece.  Strong-arm dictators are the most effective means of keeping the lid on ethnic and religious tensions while Uncle Sam drinks their milkshake.  Hopefully the US kept some Saddam DNA for cloning purposes.

And Iran would be crazy not to take its shots while the US is preoccupied with Syria as they will be in the Imperial gunsights next.  Unless it's already a twofer deal, which I think is the case.  American sheeple will wave the flags a little slower if a few of their shiny boats spring a leak.
 
2013-09-06 11:56:42 PM
Just started re-watching West Wing this evening. Forgot that second episode ended with a plane being blown up with a rocket launcher based in Syria, on order of Syrian Defense Ministry. President vowed to blow the holy shiate out of them. Would that he had, would that he had (shush, it's my fiction/reality meld) Crazy how relevant that show remains.

/reminds me of DC when I moved here January 17, 2003
//bugged by Sam's first scene with his supposedly high priced escort, who apparently didn't know what POTUS meant. Cashiers at Giant here know what POTUS means.
 
2013-09-07 12:01:07 AM
It would be nice to have an excuse to sink Iran's navy. Kind of a bonus, really.
 
2013-09-07 12:07:08 AM
CynicalLA:  It could turn into the biggest clusterfark ever. I'm sure russIa(Putin) has something planned if we attack. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia has a lot invested in Syria.

Russia was always the wildcard, but I am now convinced that Putin will walk his talk.  They don't even have to make their involvement overt.  It's widely known that Russia armed Syria to the teeth, who's to say who fired which one of their weapons from where in the fog of war.

Both Russia and China lost face when they threw Gaddafi and Libya to the Western wolves, they can't afford to let if happen again.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere for 'observation' purposes.  The 'Iranian' Navy might be far more extensive than previously thought.
 
2013-09-07 12:18:43 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean


*snrt*
 
2013-09-07 12:42:48 AM

vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean

*snrt*


Sigh, always contributing with your insightful comments.
 
2013-09-07 12:43:48 AM

Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?


img.fark.net

HOLY FARK THE LIZARD PEOPLE GOT ANOTHER ONE

WAKE UP SHEEPLE
 
2013-09-07 12:50:55 AM

Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?

[i.imgur.com image 450x290][i.imgur.com image 600x300]


Pierce Brosnan had the same issue.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-09-07 12:55:46 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Wake Up Sheeple: IMHO, Obama's presidency has been about having situations come to a final resolution, not about breaking more vases.

That's pretty wacky.
But perhaps a bit optimistic for my taste.
I'm afraid Obama has been in over his head since the beginning.

Obama is in check and unless he cowboys up, he's going to be a laughing stock at home and abroad. That's the biggest reason he'll do some cruise missiles -- to save face


The only laughingstock I saw in the last 10 years was when the world said there were no WMDs and Bush went into Iraq and never found them. Double when he never found bin Laden.

If Obama doesn't get approval and doesn't go in, the world will say "..." I suppose you think the British prime minister is a laughingstock now too. The world doesn't want to help us out, why would they laugh if we don't bomb? Assad might laugh, but who cares?

I think you project too much.
 
2013-09-07 01:03:55 AM

MurphyMurphy: Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?

[img.fark.net image 600x300]

HOLY FARK THE LIZARD PEOPLE GOT ANOTHER ONE

WAKE UP SHEEPLE


The only advice I can give is to release giant cats nearby to take care of the lizard people. The sheeple are easily rounded up with dogs. But it's always best not to wake them in the first place.
 
2013-09-07 01:11:19 AM

MurphyMurphy: Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?


I think he's got a Pinocchio thing going on with his chin.
 
2013-09-07 01:52:19 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean

*snrt*

Sigh, always contributing with your insightful comments.


I'm not worried about china too much. They are too monetarily committed to our country unlike Russia.
 
2013-09-07 02:52:37 AM

Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?

[i.imgur.com image 450x290][i.imgur.com image 600x300]


Looks like Botox malpractice got him.
 
2013-09-07 02:57:52 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: CynicalLA:  It could turn into the biggest clusterfark ever. I'm sure russIa(Putin) has something planned if we attack. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia has a lot invested in Syria.

Russia was always the wildcard, but I am now convinced that Putin will walk his talk.  They don't even have to make their involvement overt.  It's widely known that Russia armed Syria to the teeth, who's to say who fired which one of their weapons from where in the fog of war.

Both Russia and China lost face when they threw Gaddafi and Libya to the Western wolves, they can't afford to let if happen again.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere for 'observation' purposes.  The 'Iranian' Navy might be far more extensive than previously thought.


Few is a definite stretch. Even 1 with their limited capability is a stretch.
 
2013-09-07 03:06:52 AM

CynicalLA: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean

*snrt*

Sigh, always contributing with your insightful comments.

I'm not worried about china too much. They are too monetarily committed to our country unlike Russia.


It's highly unlikely that China would try anything militarily but having some subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere would be a good training exercise for their crews in a hostile (but not for them) combat environment.  China buys a lot of oil from Iran, they have much interest in how events unfold.

As for monetary commitment, US/China is more of a symbiotic relationship that could have disruptions.  Russia and China together hold 25% of US foreign debt, markets could be moved just on rumor of diversification.  Or iPad shortages.

It's a confrontation that's probably much further down the road but China won't stay America's sweatshop forever.
 
2013-09-07 03:14:39 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere for 'observation' purposes


I would. Getting there undetected from the pacific would be a huge biatch, even for a nuke. The route one way is more than halfway around the equator no matter how you cut it (submarines can't get through the Suez submerged even if they wanted to). Food would be the first major concern. I've done lextended patrols and when we were done the freeze locker and the canned food lockers were empty. There actually is a limit on how long a boat can stay out. It's much longer than say WWII standards for certain but it is all about how much food that you can carry in the end. If you can't fuel the crew then  the mission fails. The maximum length is somewhere in the 120 day range. In your scenario about half of that would be spent just transiting to the Syrian coast which means a week or so there and then transiting back. Unless China has somewhere around 60 nuke boats (they don't IIRC it's closer to less than a dozen including SSBN;s which not only are unsuited for this type of mission but are also strategic assets that never will be placed somewhere where detection is likely) fully dedicated to patrolling off of the Syrian coast you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-09-07 03:20:06 AM

wasteofspace: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: CynicalLA:  It could turn into the biggest clusterfark ever. I'm sure russIa(Putin) has something planned if we attack. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia has a lot invested in Syria.

Russia was always the wildcard, but I am now convinced that Putin will walk his talk.  They don't even have to make their involvement overt.  It's widely known that Russia armed Syria to the teeth, who's to say who fired which one of their weapons from where in the fog of war.

Both Russia and China lost face when they threw Gaddafi and Libya to the Western wolves, they can't afford to let if happen again.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere for 'observation' purposes.  The 'Iranian' Navy might be far more extensive than previously thought.

Few is a definite stretch. Even 1 with their limited capability is a stretch.


From what I've read China has 55 subs of varying capacity, I would think that they would want to get at least one or more some live training.  It wouldn't really matter if they were easily detected as they wouldn't be viewed as a threat.
 
2013-09-07 03:20:17 AM
cirrhosis_and_halitosis:

It's a confrontation that's probably much further down the road but China won't stay America's sweatshop forever.

The U.S. corporations (and other nations) will find yet another cheap place for manufacturing long before China tires of it. But you are probably right that a confrontation is more likely when trading ties diminish.
 
2013-09-07 03:40:38 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: From what I've read China has 55 subs of varying capacity, I would think that they would want to get at least one or more some live training. It wouldn't really matter if they were easily detected as they wouldn't be viewed as a threat.


Dude. Just stop. I've been there and done that. We would know beyond a doubt if Chinese (or Iranian, or Russian for that matter) boats were out there. The Med is thick with submarines and they all have their assigned boxes on the NATO side. Any other boat inside that box is by definition a non-NATO boat. Diesel boats have to snorkel and that's their weak spot. Always has been and always will be. AIP propulsion has its benefits but it still is power limited and relies on snorkeling to supplement that system. China's or Iran's fleet of boats are small time concern's in this right now.
 
2013-09-07 03:43:37 AM

Radioactive Ass: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean and elsewhere for 'observation' purposes

I would. Getting there undetected from the pacific would be a huge biatch, even for a nuke. The route one way is more than halfway around the equator no matter how you cut it (submarines can't get through the Suez submerged even if they wanted to). Food would be the first major concern. I've done lextended patrols and when we were done the freeze locker and the canned food lockers were empty. There actually is a limit on how long a boat can stay out. It's much longer than say WWII standards for certain but it is all about how much food that you can carry in the end. If you can't fuel the crew then  the mission fails. The maximum length is somewhere in the 120 day range. In your scenario about half of that would be spent just transiting to the Syrian coast which means a week or so there and then transiting back. Unless China has somewhere around 60 nuke boats (they don't IIRC it's closer to less than a dozen including SSBN;s which not only are unsuited for this type of mission but are also strategic assets that never will be placed somewhere where detection is likely) fully dedicated to patrolling off of the Syrian coast you have no idea what you are talking about.


Thanks for the first-hand info, it's difficult to find details on Chinese capabilities and I was obviously speculating on something out of my depth.  China held naval drills in the Mediterranean last summer but they did enter through Suez.

More speculation:  The Chinese dug a large tunnel to the Med.  They are the industrious type.
 
2013-09-07 04:01:20 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: More speculation: The Chinese dug a large tunnel to the Med. They are the industrious type.


LOL!

I do mean that, you actually got a physical laugh out of me with that.

On a more serious note there is a potential risk involving submarines. Not PLAN boats or Iranian boats but Russian boats. The bear still swims in the Med and it's not a secret. It never has been.
 
2013-09-07 04:17:41 AM

MurphyMurphy: Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?



HOLY FARK THE LIZARD PEOPLE GOT ANOTHER ONE

WAKE UP SHEEPLE


looks like an over-tanned, zombie muppet
 
2013-09-07 04:30:50 AM
Glad to make you laugh, I had to extend a peace offering after getting my ass handed on sub warfare.  I have read some but most still mostly limited to Das Boot and Hunt for Red October and my squid friend is out of contact.

While I got you on the line, what is your perspective on this article?  It sounds like US Navy might have a weakness for asymmetrical warfare under certain conditions.

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf
 
2013-09-07 04:32:34 AM
Above meant for Radioactive Ass
 
2013-09-07 07:07:12 AM
First Powell, now Kerry. Who thinks it's a good idea to use our top diplomat to pimp for war?
 
2013-09-07 08:16:58 AM

CynicalLA: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chinese subs in the Mediterranean

*snrt*

Sigh, always contributing with your insightful comments.

I'm not worried about china too much. They are too monetarily committed to our country unlike Russia.


Germany's #1 trading partner: Britain
Germany's #2 trading partner: France
Germany's #1 investment: Russia
Year: 1912

Yeah, economics never really slowed down the stupidity of war
 
2013-09-07 08:25:11 AM
Late to the thread, and forgive me if it's already been mentioned, but has anyone considered the possibility that Obama is intentionally having Kerry tank this so that the blame for inaction goes on Congress instead? I mean, it is a risk but that would be the best possible political outcome here.
 
2013-09-07 08:35:46 AM
Assad is the pawn. He's done. Squashed like  bug between Obama and Putin and Bandar.
 
2013-09-07 10:07:54 AM

OhioUGrad: kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.

I still have a feeling he isn't really trying because he is just trolling the GOP because now they are the ones in the position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. We won't find out for sure until they actually vote on it.


It looks like Putin has completely out-maneuvered and embarrassed Obama.
 
2013-09-07 10:44:02 AM

Nemo's Brother: OhioUGrad: kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.

I still have a feeling he isn't really trying because he is just trolling the GOP because now they are the ones in the position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. We won't find out for sure until they actually vote on it.

It looks like Putin has completely out-maneuvered and embarrassed Obama.


I think if that was the case, he wouldn't have even discussed Syria. He probably told Putin, we don't want to really do anything in Syria, but I'm having so much fun embarrassing the GOP I want to keep up the charade.
 
2013-09-07 10:51:28 AM

Bonanza Jellybean: Uh, what is going on with Kerry's face these days? Did I miss some illness or injury?

[i.imgur.com image 450x290][i.imgur.com image 600x300]


Too much botox. Seriously.
 
2013-09-07 12:21:10 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Glad to make you laugh, I had to extend a peace offering after getting my ass handed on sub warfare.  I have read some but most still mostly limited to Das Boot and Hunt for Red October and my squid friend is out of contact.

While I got you on the line, what is your perspective on this article?  It sounds like US Navy might have a weakness for asymmetrical warfare under certain conditions.

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf


I would be happy if Iran decided that it had what it needed to sink the US Navy and carried out such a plan.

The thing about exercises, especially ones like that one, is that an awful lot of it is made up. The point isn't about testing capabilities, but about teaching officers how to think about the problem. The specific results are often about as valid as a game of Dungeons and Dragons is in figuring out what tactics would work in defeating a dragon.

As far as refloating the fleet and starting over with different assumptions, of COURSE you're going to do that. What, you bring officers together, some of whom traveled 1000s of miles, and say, "whoops! Game over! You can go home now," after an hour? And "run by computer" != "super-accurate." All models are wrong, some models are useful. My game of Civilization V is run by computer, and the economic benefit to roads is negative. That's not realistic at all.

So people are reading way too much into a wargame that had some novel thinking but ultimately relied on a bunch of assumptions that weren't true then and are less true now.
 
2013-09-07 12:47:19 PM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Glad to make you laugh, I had to extend a peace offering after getting my ass handed on sub warfare.  I have read some but most still mostly limited to Das Boot and Hunt for Red October and my squid friend is out of contact.

While I got you on the line, what is your perspective on this article?  It sounds like US Navy might have a weakness for asymmetrical warfare under certain conditions.

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf


That is something which is beyond my paygrade and experience but here's what I can say about it. The navy actually took that wargame seriously and has (as I understand it) addressed the vulnerabilities that were exploited as best as possible. I personally doubt that there is a 100% fix to what was done to them in that wargame and navies are always vulnerable things because unlike armies there are no trees to hide behind when being shot at.

There's a good reason why we called surface ships "Targets", and yes, that included our own navy ships. Anyone who claims that any navy is unsinkable is deluding themselves. Ships fall into categories that fall between one torpedo and four torpedoes and disabled and unable to perform its mission is almost as good as a kill. The best that you can do is to keep the area as sanitized as possible and have a good supply of countermeasures available just in case and hope like hell that they will work as advertized.
 
2013-09-07 02:46:03 PM

FatherDale: First Powell, now Kerry. Who thinks it's a good idea to use our top diplomat to pimp for war?


potus, that's who
 
2013-09-07 02:52:58 PM

Radioactive Ass: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Glad to make you laugh, I had to extend a peace offering after getting my ass handed on sub warfare.  I have read some but most still mostly limited to Das Boot and Hunt for Red October and my squid friend is out of contact.

While I got you on the line, what is your perspective on this article?  It sounds like US Navy might have a weakness for asymmetrical warfare under certain conditions.

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf

That is something which is beyond my paygrade and experience but here's what I can say about it. The navy actually took that wargame seriously and has (as I understand it) addressed the vulnerabilities that were exploited as best as possible. I personally doubt that there is a 100% fix to what was done to them in that wargame and navies are always vulnerable things because unlike armies there are no trees to hide behind when being shot at.

There's a good reason why we called surface ships "Targets", and yes, that included our own navy ships. Anyone who claims that any navy is unsinkable is deluding themselves. Ships fall into categories that fall between one torpedo and four torpedoes and disabled and unable to perform its mission is almost as good as a kill. The best that you can do is to keep the area as sanitized as possible and have a good supply of countermeasures available just in case and hope like hell that they will work as advertized.


For some reason, SUBFOR has never been interested in any analytical support from the Navy's FFRDC. It's not like they couldn't use it, based on the exercises of which I've been a part.
 
2013-09-07 04:50:08 PM

vygramul: For some reason, SUBFOR has never been interested in any analytical support from the Navy's FFRDC. It's not like they couldn't use it, based on the exercises of which I've been a part.


SUBDEVGRU\SUBDEVRON 12 has that covered. We have almost always played it "Soft" in exercises because we were mimicking what we assume the enemy may do (we are playing by their rules so to speak). That's to help everyone else train their ASW forces, they need to be able to find an enemy to fight and so we make it easy for them to do that otherwise they would get stuck at the "Find them" stage and not exercise the rest of their toys. When we play by our own rules carriers end up with a smouldering green smoke sitting on their flight deck with no idea where it came from.

When truly and fully unleashed a US boat has a simulated kill ratio of up to around 700 kills and 3 being killed ratio in real world conditions. That was with the Nautilus back in the 50's, a vastly inferior platform by today's standards and our surface forces ASW capabilities have greatly improved so even if you quarter that it's still over 50 to 1 in our favor. I'll take those odds any day of the week. If you want to kill a sub you need another sub to do it, that's more of a 50\50 equation in most cases. That's why Carrier Battle Groups have a boat or two with them and it was one of the 688's main missions kept in mind when they were first designed.

That's why the expense of a nuke boat is worth it. That and surveillance missions where any other platform would be spotted and whatever we wanted to see doesn't happen. Add in a AN\BYG-1 or AN\BSY-2 and any surface ship within range are pretty much farked if we want it to be. That's not me being cocky, that's just the facts of life.
 
2013-09-07 05:26:33 PM

Radioactive Ass: If you want to kill a sub you need another sub to do it


That's not what the P-3 guys say :)

Seriously, though, typically, your best anti-x is another x. When I was in ROTC, the saying was, "The best tank killer on the battlefield is another tank." Which basically was a way of saying don't be stupid and try to use LAWs against a T-72.

Radioactive Ass: Add in a AN\BYG-1 or AN\BSY-2 and any surface ship within range are pretty much farked if we want it to be. That's not me being cocky, that's just the facts of life.


I was in an exercise white cell when an attack sub guy was taking bets on how soon before the HVU would be sunk. He lost some because, as he put it, "I forgot that was a boomer PLAYING an attack sub. You have to add a few seconds for those guys."
 
2013-09-07 06:04:03 PM

vygramul: That's not what the P-3 guys say :)

Seriously, though, typically, your best anti-x is another x. When I was in ROTC, the saying was, "The best tank killer on the battlefield is another tank." Which basically was a way of saying don't be stupid and try to use LAWs against a T-72.


The P3's are good, no doubt about it. However they have to find us first and unless we are near or at PD their MAD gear has a very slim chance of locating us. Only sloppy captains who can't resist the temptation to put eyes on target do that on approach unless their task is to take pictures and not kill the target. Polishing the cannonball is strongly discouraged and drilled into PCO's at officer SUBSCOL and down at the range at AUTEC. Close is all it takes, no need to be all that precise when the weapon is built to look for its target all on its own.

As an aside, the navy had, at one time, plans to install a mast with a box launcher with Stinger type missiles on it to counter dipping helicopters and P3 type of threats (in the 688i class when they moved the planes to the bow and opened up some room in the sail). They canned the idea due to it using up valuable real estate inside the sail better used for surveillance gear which actually would be used.

I was in an exercise white cell when an attack sub guy was taking bets on how soon before the HVU would be sunk. He lost some because, as he put it, "I forgot that was a boomer PLAYING an attack sub. You have to add a few seconds for those guys."

Yeah you do. Tactical considerations were secondary when they were designed. It's all about how sonar and fire control systems are integrated. Fast attacks are all about the front of the boat while boomers are all about the middle of the boat and their systems reflect that. The old boomers shared resources with the missile fire control systems in MCC (MK88) and even that was a late modification, before then they carried boxes of computer punch cards with per-calculated trajectories for expected patrol areas. Those computers were literally the size of refrigerators and there were about a dozen of them. Their entire computing power was about the same as an IBM 386 and they looked just like what you might have seen in a 60's sci-fi movies, flashing lights and all. The disk drive (a whopping 35 mb) weighed in the neighborhood of 50 lbs.
 
2013-09-07 08:23:07 PM

2wolves: There are no "good guys" in the Syrian conflict.  Once you accept that your option set becomes much clearer.


It's the ultimate no win scenario.

Help rebels? Helping Jihadists win is not winning.

Help Assad? Helping the guy who used CW on his own people win is not winning.

Do something?  Might make a bad situation worse. Not winning.

Do nothing? Make decades of anti WMD rhetoric a joke overnight further crumbling any semblance of belief in international law.

Even Charlie Sheen is at a loss here.

I still say lob a couple of cruise missiles at some of his military infrastructure and call it a day.
 
2013-09-07 11:39:40 PM

Radioactive Ass: DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.

You can't. This is what I've been saying all along. This proposed action is giving aid and assistance to the rebels who, despite all of Kerry.s bloviated blustering blathering to the contrary, are tied to Al Qaeda. This alone is enough to not do anything at all to help them. There are actual laws against helping them in any way starting with the Patriot Act and ending at the constitution itself.

Then there's the tiny little detail of us committing an act of war without any treaty ties or UN approval to justify it. What happens when Syria decides to declare war on us? They would be completely within their rights to do that. Then every act of what we now call terrorism would become legitimate acts committed in a war setting if they are behind them under the guise of sabotage, a legal tactic of warfare.

There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

All for what? To send a message that may or may not have any effect in a civil war that has no good guys in it as far as we are concerned. Everyone there hates us and would slit our throats in our sleep if given the chance. This whole misadventure is poisonous at several levels and the people advocating it are either complete and utter fools or are looking for some kickbacks somewhere down the line.



Not to mention, if Al Qaeda actually was behind the chemical attack (which isn't far-fetched in the least) as a means of getting the international community to rally against Assad (which they have) - then our Military will have been effectively commandeered by Al Qaeda to carry out its goals.

The rest of the world would be right to think of the U.S. as stupid.

And now look at how many people are defending action by saying that we're compelled to intervene because of what Obama said (before he had all of the facts). Obama farked us on this one.
 
2013-09-07 11:44:35 PM

The Muthaship: /you gotta be deep in the tank for this administration to advocate for the pitiful mess we are about to create.


I'm creating a lot of Farkies with links to this thread, so I can remember who all of the cheerleaders were.
 
2013-09-07 11:54:53 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-Boxer-buck-constituen ts-on-Syria-strike-4793945.php">http://www.sfgate.com/politics/articl e/Feinstein-Boxer-buck-constituen ts-on-Syria-strike-4793945.php


It's astonishingly telling that our Government's Leadership's continuing salespitch on bombing the crap out of Syria isn't

"Here is evidence that the chemical weapons were used on Assad's orders,"

it's

"Look at the children! Look at them! Look how sad! We have to punish someone!!!"


They've found a sucker in the American public - pull a nice Appeal to Emotion and Americans will flock in droves to line up and march behind the agenda-of-the-day.
 
2013-09-08 03:28:28 AM

BigNumber12: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-Boxer-buck-constitue n ts-on-Syria-strike-4793945.php">http://www.sfgate.com/politics/articl e/Feinstein-Boxer-buck-constituen ts-on-Syria-strike-4793945.php


It's astonishingly telling that our Government's Leadership's continuing salespitch on bombing the crap out of Syria isn't

"Here is evidence that the chemical weapons were used on Assad's orders,"

it's

"Look at the children! Look at them! Look how sad! We have to punish someone!!!"


They've found a sucker in the American public - pull a nice Appeal to Emotion and Americans will flock in droves to line up and march behind the agenda-of-the-day.


Somehow I don't think that's going to happen in this instance. Too many people wanting to see the evidence.
 
Displayed 294 of 294 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report