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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Your Monday Morning schadenfreude: Watching McCain try and sell Syria to Arizonians   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 122
    More: Amusing, Sen. John McCain  
•       •       •

1502 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 11:43 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 03:09:43 PM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


If Assad even used  the weapons.  There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels, and the US has said all of its evidence is secret so they can't even back up their threats with evidence.  I don't even know what happened to the UN investigations, they seem to have fallen off the edge of the Earth.

If they could prove Assad was behind it, you may have a point.  But as it is it looks more like Saudi (and ostensibly US) backed rebel fighters using gas to pull the west into the war.
 
2013-09-09 03:18:46 PM

stevetherobot: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Shoot, stab, burn, blow up and starve 100,000 people and it's all good. Gas a couple thousand and "It's on outrage!"


It is all an outrage.  The use of chemical weapons is what pushes it over the edge in terms of requiring intervention.

Think of Kososvo.  It was a horrible war but when it actually became clear that genocide was happening, it compelled military intervention.

If military intervention meets humanitarian grounds, national security interests and a military objective is both definable and plausible, then a case can be made for it.

Syria meets those requirements and I believe the US and other countries need to respond.
 
2013-09-09 03:26:41 PM

mrshowrules: Think of Kososvo. It was a horrible war but when it actually became clear that genocide was happening, it compelled military intervention.


I wouldn't hold out that Kosovo was such a win. You simply replaced which ethnic power was doing the killing. (here)
 
2013-09-09 03:28:00 PM

dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels


What evidence of rebel use would that be?
 
2013-09-09 03:32:43 PM

Philip J. Fry: dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels

What evidence of rebel use would that be?


People have been saying it on the AM radio. That's PROOF!
 
2013-09-09 03:42:24 PM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.


Because we're noticing the laws of unintended consequences that keep biting us in the butt. No one batted an eye when the US put the Shah in place in Iran, but after seeing his this led to decades of fallout (the rise of fundamentalism in Iran and the hostage crisis leading to us arming Iraq, which in turn led to us having to fight Iraq in 1991, causing people to get pissed off at us building bases in Saudi Arabia, causing more support for Al Queda, which made 9/11 possible, which opened up the invasion of Iraq...)

What we're seeing is that interventionism turns into a game of whack-a-mole because as soon as you become involved you become responsible for the outcomes, so we wind up spending more lives and more treasure dealing with the fallout. We help bring down Gadaffi, and then not long afterwards we're dealing with idiots killing our Ambassadors for no good reason. It just never seems to end anymore, and the world never seems to get better. Seems like it might be more productive to tell the rest of the world to bigger off while we spend out fortune here trying to make life better for our own people instead of worrying about what is happening half a world away.
 
2013-09-09 03:50:07 PM
l.wigflip.com
 
2013-09-09 03:57:24 PM

Philip J. Fry: dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels

What evidence of rebel use would that be?


Behold, the conclusive evidence from the UN inspectors!

"How limited was the first phase of inspection? According to a report in The Guardian (Monday, August 26, 2013), the small team of UN Inspectors investigating the poison gas attack in Syria spent only an hour and a half at the site.  So far, we have not been given any report by the UN team, but the doctor in charge of the local hospital was apparently surprised by how brief and limited was their investigation.  According toThe Guardian reporter, he said, "The committee did not visit any house in the district. We asked the committee to exhume the bodies for checking them. But they refused. They say that there was no need to do that.

    'We had prepared samples for the committee from some bodies and video documentation. There were urine and blood samples as well as clothes. But they refused to take them.

    'After an hour and a half, they got an order from the regime to leave ASAP. The security force told the committee if they did not leave now, they could not guarantee their security. They could not visit the main six sites where the chemical rockets had fallen and lots of people were killed.' "
 
2013-09-09 03:57:30 PM

lockers: mrshowrules: Think of Kososvo. It was a horrible war but when it actually became clear that genocide was happening, it compelled military intervention.

I wouldn't hold out that Kosovo was such a win. You simply replaced which ethnic power was doing the killing. (here)


Kosovo ended genocide and created a foundation for peace.  It was successful and it was the right call.
 
2013-09-09 03:59:32 PM
Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Libya
Syria

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War
 
2013-09-09 04:05:17 PM

mrshowrules: Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo

 Afghanistan*
Libya
Syria


*though horribly poorly executed

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War

Libya

Syria


FTFY
 
2013-09-09 04:06:09 PM

Mad_Radhu: Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.

Because we're noticing the laws of unintended consequences that keep biting us in the butt. No one batted an eye when the US put the Shah in place in Iran, but after seeing his this led to decades of fallout (the rise of fundamentalism in Iran and the hostage crisis leading to us arming Iraq, which in turn led to us having to fight Iraq in 1991, causing people to get pissed off at us building bases in Saudi Arabia, causing more support for Al Queda, which made 9/11 possible, which opened up the invasion of Iraq...)

What we're seeing is that interventionism turns into a game of whack-a-mole because as soon as you become involved you become responsible for the outcomes, so we wind up spending more lives and more treasure dealing with the fallout. We help bring down Gadaffi, and then not long afterwards we're dealing with idiots killing our Ambassadors for no good reason. It just never seems to end anymore, and the world never seems to get better. Seems like it might be more productive to tell the rest of the world to bigger off while we spend out fortune here trying to make life better for our own people instead of worrying about what is happening half a world away.


I've been saying this for years.  I'm always shouted down as an isolationist.
 
2013-09-09 04:09:42 PM
Because Kerry really isn't very good at this, and gave Syria and Russia an out.. Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201399144556640217. ht ml
 
2013-09-09 04:09:52 PM

Jonnadiah: mrshowrules: Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo
 Afghanistan*
Libya
Syria

*though horribly poorly executed

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War
Libya

Syria

FTFY


How was Libya a wrong call?  It had support from African Council,  Council of Arab States, NATO, UN and the Libyan people.  Not a single American casualty and it accomplished exactly what it wanted to.

You might as well call WWII a mistake also.  Russia and Europe would have eventually defeated Hitler.
 
2013-09-09 04:13:29 PM

mrshowrules: How was Libya a wrong call? It had support from African Council, Council of Arab States, NATO, UN and the Libyan people. Not a single American casualty and it accomplished exactly what it wanted to.


It made the black guy look good, so it was bad.
 
2013-09-09 04:26:03 PM

Evil High Priest: Because Kerry really isn't very good at this, and gave Syria and Russia an out.. Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201399144556640217. ht ml


As SecState, he's our chief diplomat. I'd say avoiding military conflict (if it can be avoided while achieving the same results) IS being good at his job. If Syria peacefully disarms its CW program, that achieves the same goals as striking the everloving fark out of those capabilities (or whatever proxy).

Unless your measure of a SecState's job performance is "countries bombed" or "conflicts entered into".
 
2013-09-09 04:30:19 PM

Mad_Radhu: Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.

Because we're noticing the laws of unintended consequences that keep biting us in the butt. No one batted an eye when the US put the Shah in place in Iran, but after seeing his this led to decades of fallout (the rise of fundamentalism in Iran and the hostage crisis leading to us arming Iraq, which in turn led to us having to fight Iraq in 1991, causing people to get pissed off at us building bases in Saudi Arabia, causing more support for Al Queda, which made 9/11 possible, which opened up the invasion of Iraq...)

What we're seeing is that interventionism turns into a game of whack-a-mole because as soon as you become involved you become responsible for the outcomes, so we wind up spending more lives and more treasure dealing with the fallout. We help bring down Gadaffi, and then not long afterwards we're dealing with idiots killing our Ambassadors for no good reason. It just never seems to end anymore, and the world never seems to get better. Seems like it might be more productive to tell the rest of the world to bigger off while we spend out fortune here trying to make life better for our own people instead of worrying about what is happening half a world away.


This.
 
2013-09-09 04:45:30 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: The Gulf War was the result of Iraq invading the sovereign state of Kuwait, not Saddam gassing Kurds (which happened in the late '80's in the Iran-Iraq war). Learning history is important, or you'll just keep getting suckered.


Wasn't Iraq justified in that invasion because Kuwait was cross-drilling into sovereign Iraqi territory?
 
2013-09-09 04:47:03 PM

Dr Dreidel: Evil High Priest: Because Kerry really isn't very good at this, and gave Syria and Russia an out.. Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201399144556640217. ht ml

As SecState, he's our chief diplomat. I'd say avoiding military conflict (if it can be avoided while achieving the same results) IS being good at his job. If Syria peacefully disarms its CW program, that achieves the same goals as striking the everloving fark out of those capabilities (or whatever proxy).

Unless your measure of a SecState's job performance is "countries bombed" or "conflicts entered into".


No, you missed my point. I think he's trying his best to arrange for military action in Syria, not avoid it. He farked up and gave an off the cuff statement about how it would be impossible to get Syria to agree to giving up all their CW.. and within hours, Russia and Syria said OK! Let's do that! Then he tried to walk that suggestion back completely but sorry, too late. Currently, it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen. Kerry and the Syrian rebels seem to be the only ones with a problem with this.
 
2013-09-09 11:04:04 PM

Evil High Priest: Philip J. Fry: dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels

What evidence of rebel use would that be?

Behold, the conclusive evidence from the UN inspectors!

"How limited was the first phase of inspection? According to a report in The Guardian (Monday, August 26, 2013), the small team of UN Inspectors investigating the poison gas attack in Syria spent only an hour and a half at the site.  So far, we have not been given any report by the UN team, but the doctor in charge of the local hospital was apparently surprised by how brief and limited was their investigation.  According toThe Guardian reporter, he said, "The committee did not visit any house in the district. We asked the committee to exhume the bodies for checking them. But they refused. They say that there was no need to do that.

    'We had prepared samples for the committee from some bodies and video documentation. There were urine and blood samples as well as clothes. But they refused to take them.

    'After an hour and a half, they got an order from the regime to leave ASAP. The security force told the committee if they did not leave now, they could not guarantee their security. They could not visit the main six sites where the chemical rockets had fallen and lots of people were killed.' "


My favorite part of that article is when they cite a NY Times correspondent saying something that I can't confirm he even said in April as proof that homemade rockets were used in the attacks in August. I had no idea that the Grey Lady's correspondents were unbound from the concept of linear time.
 
2013-09-10 05:42:39 AM

mrshowrules: Jonnadiah: mrshowrules: Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo
 Afghanistan*
Libya
Syria

*though horribly poorly executed

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War
Libya

Syria

FTFY

How was Libya a wrong call?  It had support from African Council,  Council of Arab States, NATO, UN and the Libyan people.  Not a single American casualty and it accomplished exactly what it wanted to.

You might as well call WWII a mistake also.  Russia and Europe would have eventually defeated Hitler.


I am getting sick of this retarded argument.

We did not enter WWII to rescue Europe.

Japan bombed us. Germany, being an ally of Japan, declared war on the United States the next day.

We didn't do it for the Jews. We didn't do it for the Brits. We didn't do it for the French. We did it because Germany declared war on us
 
2013-09-10 03:35:41 PM
I love the video of these people stating they have backed McCain for years.  Hasn't he always been in favor of bombing anyone, anytime?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/48783/john-mccain-syria-is-just-hi s- latest-excuse-to-go-to-war
 
Displayed 22 of 122 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report