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 27
    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 (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-06 01:20:57 PM
3 votes:
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 04:57:59 PM
2 votes:

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 04:09:27 PM
2 votes:

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 05:57:26 PM
1 votes:
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 05:54:26 PM
1 votes:

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 05:10:25 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:03:14 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:38 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:18 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:10 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:36 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:24:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:30 PM
1 votes:
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 03:09:57 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:56:00 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:19 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:04 PM
1 votes:

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 02:41:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:40:57 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:47 PM
1 votes:
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 02:36:28 PM
1 votes:

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 02:13:59 PM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report