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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)"
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!
HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.Brilliant.
Smackledorfer: be the right move for the wrong reasons.
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 weekI 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!
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.
Psylence: But go ahead. Our military magic show will only kill evildoers!
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.
Headso: what do chemical weapons do? kill people?
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.
DamnYankees: I know a claim of hubristic bullshiat when I hear it.
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 weekI think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.
qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".
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.
LasersHurt: I don't think either you or I know enough about the total of Assad's capabilities to properly make that call.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 23 2017 10:30:04
Runtime: 0.358 sec (358 ms)