Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Syria, isolationism, and world police?

Feb 8, 2012#1

strawman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/08/pentagon-internal-review-syria-killing?newsfeed=true

Aside from the obvious "If you see someone getting killed, you should consider intervening", what is the relationship we have with syria that requires us to act in this case?

Russia and China both vetoed taking any multi-lateral action.

Is there strategic value in helping the opposition (which is cheaper and easier than sending in our own troops) or are we merely acting the part of the world police, which many people around the world simultaneously hate us for, and expect us to perform?

I don't know much about the syria situation beyond that spoken of in the article, and am not familiar with the regoin and related politics, so perhaps the answer is simple. Either way I'm interested in understanding it better.

Feb 8, 2012#2

sixpackshaker

Syria's biggest economic advantage is location. They don't have much in the way of natural resources. Syria just sits in the middle of the World's crossroads. Syria is a bit unstable after long, cruel rule of his father, then his own rule that seemed to turn the evil dial up to 11.

Syria is also knee deep in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the greater Jihadist movement overall. While Syria is a bit more Western than other nations in the Middle East, they still want Israel to stop existing. While they don't have much of a history of State Sponsored Terrorism, they have had a long history of ignoring Terrorist Organizations that set up camp in their country(as long as they leave Syria alone and attack only Israel and Lebanon.) Early in the Iraq War Syria let those same organizations and other insurgents train there and attack US interests in Iraq.

Syria is important to us because they are next door neighbors to two (now 3) of our close allies in the middle east, Turkey, Israel and Iraq.

Syria holds a lot of blame for all the death and destruction that has gone on (off and on) in Lebanon since the late 70's.

Feb 8, 2012#3

AshburnerX

Honestly, I don't know what to think about this. On one hand, the violence needs to stop and we're probably the only ones who could do it. The Arab League certainly isn't going to man up and police it's own members.

On the other hand, any move to do so would probably trigger a war with Russia, which has a military base there and makes billions off dollars selling the Syrians weapons.

Feb 8, 2012#4

TommiR

stienman said:
Aside from the obvious "If you see someone getting killed, you should consider intervening", what is the relationship we have with syria that requires us to act in this case?

Russia and China both vetoed taking any multi-lateral action.

Is there strategic value in helping the opposition (which is cheaper and easier than sending in our own troops) or are we merely acting the part of the world police, which many people around the world simultaneously hate us for, and expect us to perform?

In my opinion, the best advantage for the US in toppling the Assad regime in Syria would be the severing of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah triangle. Syria has supported Hezbollah and Hamas, and provided a throughfare for iranian equipment reaching these groups. Also the israelis seem not to mind seeing Assad go; though they were a lot more cautious before, as Assad has kept the syrian-israeli border quiet even through some tough times (Israel cautioned against a GWB advocated regime change in Syria in 2005), the israelis seem to have changed tack recently.

As to possible negative consequences of toppling Assad, I'll list a couple of ideas:

1. He might not go quietly. In May and June, palestinian protesters crossed the normally heavily patrolled syrian frontier zone and tried (sometimes successfully) to enter Israel for the first time in decades of quiet. This was probably Assad sending a message.

2. Much of Israel's earlier reluctance to endorse an overthrow of Assad seems to be uncertainty over who will take charge after he is gone. Though he was certainly no friend of Israel, he was a known quantity whom they could live with. In 2005, israeli PM Ariel Sharon said Assad was "the Devil we know" and expressed fears that his regime might be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. If Assad falls and his administration is replaced by the majority sunnis, there will possibly be large numbers of refugees consisting of Alawites,
possibly also christians, fleeing Syria and the victor's vengeance. Israel has stated that they are taking steps to prepare to handle the influx, though.

4. The syrian military possesses some serious firepower, reportedly also chemical and biological weapons. If the syrian military establishment comes crashing down uncontrollably, it is anybody's guess as to where those goodies will end up.

5. Iran may focus it's attentions to Iraq in order to compensate for it's loss of influence in the region, leading to the situation in Iraq deteriorating.

AshburnerX said:
Honestly, I don't know what to think about this. On one hand, the violence needs to stop and we're probably the only ones who could do it. The Arab League certainly isn't going to man up and police it's own members.

On the other hand, any move to do so would probably trigger a war with Russia, which has a military base there and makes billions off dollars selling the Syrians weapons.

I very much doubt things will go that far.

I'd say it is unlikely the US will take any overt military steps against Assad; you just got out of Iraq, you have a possible situation brewing in the Hormuz, and you will cut your defence spending and focus your resources in the Pacific. The US could do without another flare-up in Syria - much less one against Russia.

As to the russians, they know they have insufficient assets in the area to contest a serious US involvement. And even if they had enough force there, any interests, whether commercial or military, that Russia might have in Syria are dwarfed by the risks associated with going to war with a major power. They might make some slightly tough noises now that it's presidential election year over there, but they aren't stupid.

Feb 8, 2012#5

Espy

War with Russia you say? Why that sounds like just the thing to jump start a new cold war and really get our country back in gear!

Feb 8, 2012#6

strawman

Nothin' stimulates an economy like war!

Feb 9, 2012#7

Espy

stienman said:
Nothin' stimulates an economy like war!

Thats what I'm saying! Come on people, lets make some war!

Feb 9, 2012#8

TommiR

Quick, to the stock market, to buy some Halliburton!

Feb 9, 2012#9

SpecialKO

Hmmm, I agree with Tommi, Russia and the US aren't going to war over Syria, they'll probably just fill up the newswaves with vitriol and propaganda programming that will make the creators rich...

*goes to buy some News Corp*

Aug 29, 2013#10

strawman

Well, Russia just called for a closed-door UN security council meeting about Syria. Sounds like even they have a limit to the abuses Syria is allowed to visit on its people. Here's another related thread: https://www.halforums.com/threads/russia-sends-anti-terror-troops-syria.27376/

Sounds like world leaders may actually act soon.

Aug 29, 2013#11

sixpackshaker

I spend too much time reading comments on major news articles... One theme that gets a lot of support is "Obama is dragging us into yet another one of his wars..." or it gets compared to Bush invading Iraq on zero evidence. We are not even planing to invade.

Aug 29, 2013#12

Frank

Hasn't Russia now just parked warships in the Mediterranean? They up to something.

Aug 29, 2013#13

drawn_inward

I think the U.S. is tired of war. I know I am. I am tired of seeing our guys/gals killed and maimed. I am also tired of the insane amount of money being spent on it.

Let the U.N. handle it. If the Russians have a base there and aren't doing anything about it then it's on there head. Put pressure on Russia to do something.

As it is, I am ready for ALL of the U.S. troops to come home, but I've been feeling quite isolationistic for a long time.

Aug 29, 2013#14

sixpackshaker

Well their ally has been threatened by NATO and the UN.[DOUBLEPOST=1377800816,1377800702][/DOUBLEPOST]

drawn_inward said:
I think the U.S. is tired of war. I know I am. I am tired of seeing our guys/gals killed and maimed. I am also tired of the insane amount of money being spent on it.

Let the U.N. handle it. If the Russians have a base there and aren't doing anything about it then it's on there head. Put pressure on Russia to do something.

As it is, I am ready for ALL of the U.S. troops to come home, but I've been feeling quite isolationistic for a long time.

Russia will not do anything about this. If anything they are probably upset that they have not used WMD in Chechnya, since it looks like the UN will chicken out.

Aug 29, 2013#15

drawn_inward

sixpackshaker said:
Well their ally has been threatened by NATO and the UN.[DOUBLEPOST=1377800816,1377800702][/DOUBLEPOST]

Russia will not do anything about this. If anything they are probably upset that they have not used WMD in Chechnya, since it looks like the UN will chicken out.

I agree that Russia (or China) won't do anything. Why does it always seem like the U.S. has to do something? Australia? Great Britain? The entire European Union??? We should offer support (i.e. intelligence) for whoever decides to step up.

Aug 29, 2013#16

sixpackshaker

If you are getting mugged, do you want a security guard volunteer or a police officer to come to your aid?

We are the pro's at this. You do not want some second rate power to come in and carpet bomb the place, because that is all that their technology can handle.

Aug 29, 2013#17

drawn_inward

sixpackshaker said:
If you are getting mugged, do you want a security guard volunteer or a police officer to come to your aid?

We are the pro's at this. You do not want some second rate power to come in and carpet bomb the place, because that is all that their technology can handle.

You telling the truth, but like I said, I'm tired. But, innocent kids are dying and that's a travesty.

Aug 29, 2013#18

GasBandit

There's no easy answers. Russia and China are threatening to use their security council veto powers, so that pretty much means we can't wait for the UN to do anything. But do we really want to get involved? It's a power struggle between a blood-drenched dictator and implacable islamist jihadists (including Al Qaeda) where no matter who wins, Syria (and US interests) will be worse off. But Obama made the mistake of drawing a line in the sand with chemical weapons, and it was stomped on. So now if we DON'T intervene, other forces hostile to the US will be emboldened by the sign of weakness. Every moment we spend vacillating, more civilians die horribly - but any military strike from us will (despite our superior technology) inevitably also increase the civilian death toll. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Aug 29, 2013#19

sixpackshaker

That line in the sand has been there for over 30 years.

Aug 29, 2013#20

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
There's no easy answers. Russia and China are threatening to use their security council veto powers, so that pretty much means we can't wait for the UN to do anything. But do we really want to get involved? It's a power struggle between a blood-drenched dictator and implacable islamist jihadists (including Al Qaeda) where no matter who wins, Syria (and US interests) will be worse off. But Obama made the mistake of drawing a line in the sand with chemical weapons, and it was stomped on. So now if we DON'T intervene, other forces hostile to the US will be emboldened by the sign of weakness. Every moment we spend vacillating, more civilians die horribly - but any military strike from us will (despite our superior technology) inevitably also increase the civilian death toll. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Gas nailed it. We can ether support the rebels and hope they don't let the theocrats take control (like Egypt is doing, poorly) or we can let a brutal dictator decimate his opposition with weapons that are/should be war crimes to use. THIS is why we set up puppet dictators whenever we can. But now we are obligated to act, which means we can expect the people we help to try and kill us in 20 years.

You know, like usual.

Aug 29, 2013#21

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
That line in the sand has been there for over 30 years.

It was reasserted, forcefully, in a public presidential speech. But he called it a red line instead of a line in the sand.

In other news, my newsfeed just told me "Obama briefs Boehner on Syria" and I have to admit I snickered a little.

Aug 29, 2013#22

strawman

Ah, so Russia calling for a emergency closed door UN security council meeting (which has been going on for the last 45 minutes now) is more an attempt from them to stop the US, French, UK, and others from acting in Syria.

I was hoping Russia was having an about face...

Aug 29, 2013#23

D

Dubyamn

Lord knows I'm tired of over a decade of never ending war and I don't want Syria to turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan but I really can't stand us just sitting by and watching ethnic cleansing and the widespread use of WMDs.

And it would be nice for us to stand up for our values once in the last 16 years. Don't know how many American lives that is worth but right now we've maxed out our moral credit card on stupid shit like torture and the Iraq war. If we ever want to be trusted as world leaders again we need to start leading.

Aug 29, 2013#24

GasBandit

It would be a very curious about-face for them (the Russians) to do otherwise, as they have steadfastly backed Assad this entire time and also have absolutely no concern for trifling details such as civilian deaths or chemical weapon use. Like I said in another thread - the Russians have spent basically all of human history either being the world's villain or being in bed with whoever is at the time.

Aug 29, 2013#25

strawman

I wonder if people would have been ultimately OK with the Iraq war if WMDs of significance were found? If so, it would be hypocritical of us to not perform some work in Syria. If people would still have wanted to avoid Iraq, then not touching Syria makes sense.

Do we really want, however, to be the idle bystander while the woman in central park is murdered?

I suspect the broader political problem is how to deal with Russia and China. They are the main reason no one has stepped in so far, and their support of the regime has continued, if not escalated, the violence.

Russia calls a meeting, clearly laying out what they will do if we interfere. We tell Russia what has to happen in Syria for us not to interfere, and Russia makes sure the bad things stop.

Seems to be the only way to move forward without a direct confrontation with Russia and China...

Aug 29, 2013#26

sixpackshaker

My car's engine is making that sabre rattling noise again.

Aug 29, 2013#27

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
My car's engine is making that sabre rattling noise again.

Yeah, to stop it you have to mix up and apply a tube of eProxyWar.

Aug 29, 2013#28

TommiR

Obama talking about red lines does seem to have been an imprudent move. Now the options are either to intervene on behalf of a dictator who has always been an ally of Iran, or to intervene on behalf of jihadist rebels who also seem to have conducted chemical weapons attacks, or to do nothing and lose cred after making such absolute statements. Out of these, doing nothing might not be the worst option, though it might have been better to keep the rhetoric in check.

And things might be shifting into the direction of non-action, or for-show pinprick action. Obama gave an interview where he said that a decision on Syria has not been made, and the british seem to be backing down on the issue.

Aug 29, 2013#29

GasBandit

Yep, the British Parliament just (narrowly) voted against military action in Syria.

Aug 29, 2013#30

GasBandit

Of course! How did we not realize! The answer is simple:

Aug 29, 2013#31

Krisken

Yuck. I don't have a whole lot to say on the issue, really. I just wish countries would stop killing their citizens and being douches.

Aug 30, 2013#32

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Yep, the British Parliament just (narrowly) voted against military action in Syria.

Saying it "narrowly" voted against, while true, doesn't quite cover the political realities. It's like a Democratic Congress (with a wide-enough margin to be "safe") voting against a Democratic president's laws. Sure it's happened, but it's a very, very painful signal. Cameron pretty much got punished for Blair's lies and manipulations.

About the chemical attacks...It's nice you're all saying it was Assad. it's also nice that some international NGOs are saying there's about a 50/50 chance it was either a rebel splinter group, or one of the bigger rebel groups, instead of the regime. Known fact is that both the government and, at the very least, the two most important rebel groups all posses several types of chemical weapons. Tests so far say it was probably saringas, which we know was in possession of the rebels but we don't have confirmed reports on being in the hands of the government (but who are we kidding? Of course they have it too! Probably bought in the same place!).

if the US wants European traction, the diplomatic focus needs to shift from "going in to help the rebels by [...]" to "going in to stop the fighting from all sides by [...]". A no-fly zone might help, just like it did in Lybia, but Syria's an even uglier conflict - and with less reason for most nations to get involved (except for Russia - and their reasons are even worse than usual!). Realistically, you'd need almost as many boots-on-the-ground in Syria as in Iraq - mostly because Iraq has been and continues to be chronically understaffed, and because the Syrian regime has far more modern military equipment than Iraq - even though it's only about 40% of the surface. It doesn't help that there's far more Syrians than Iraqi per square mile, and that Syria's much closer to a lot of important stuff, such as "Europe".

Anyway - drop a nuke on the whole lot, put down at least 50,000 troops and accept that they'll be there for 10 years or more, or don't go. Don't do the same thing as Afghanistan and Iraq - start things you can't or won't finish - and perhaps, just perhaps, try finding out why other countries aren't as eager to march in instead of going cavalier seul.

And drawn_inward...I knwo you're not the typical american and whatever, but the "Why is it always us who have to go and clean up everyone's mess?" comment is very much the type of line of thinking that ensures Americans are considered arrogant and self-centered bastards in pretty much every part of the world that isn't the West (and by most of the left wing of the West, too). There are plenty of huge armed conflicts going on in the world where the US is, at the very least, dragging its feet, and more often, pretending it doesn't exist or isn't as bad as all that. You are, of course, more aware of the wars/conflicts American media and/or politics have deemed important or terrible. This isn't strange, or weir,d or wrong, or whatever. It pays to be aware of it, though.

Eh, I'm being too "anti-American" and too ranty, I suppose, my apologies. Still. The fight in Syria is disastrous, and the situation, as per usual, has been left to rot so long that no matter what course of action is followed, we'll look back on it and say "why didn't we do something else?" in five years' time. heck, already.

Aug 30, 2013#33

DarkAudit

So, what's it going to be?

Onion, but then again...

Aug 30, 2013#34

Shakey

Bubble181 said:
About the chemical attacks...It's nice you're all saying it was Assad. it's also nice that some international NGOs are saying there's about a 50/50 chance it was either a rebel splinter group, or one of the bigger rebel groups, instead of the regime. Known fact is that both the government and, at the very least, the two most important rebel groups all posses several types of chemical weapons. Tests so far say it was probably saringas, which we know was in possession of the rebels but we don't have confirmed reports on being in the hands of the government (but who are we kidding? Of course they have it too! Probably bought in the same place!).

This is my main worry. The only evidence we've seen so far is that chemical weapons have most likely been used. We have no idea who did it. Before we put our troops at risk to take out a government and put some rebels in power, we better make damn sure those rebels didn't try to kill their own people with chemical weapons to force our hand. We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different.

Aug 30, 2013#35

Espy

There was a time when I feel like I would have championed us going in and finding a good old quagmire for us to roll around in but since our last decade long war I'm just weary AND wary of the idea now.

Aug 30, 2013#36

Bubble181

Shakey said:
This is my main worry. The only evidence we've seen so far is that chemical weapons have most likely been used. We have no idea who did it. Before we put our troops at risk to take out a government and put some rebels in power, we better make damn sure those rebels didn't try to kill their own people with chemical weapons to force our hand. We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different.

The non-violent opposition (yeah, there's such a thing, but I haven't seen them mentioned in any English press so far) claim there's proof that it wasn't weapon grade chemical weapons - closer to terrorism-level homebrew than to actual military quality. If so, that would point to (one of) the rebels (groups) or Al-Qaeda being behind the attack, not the regime.

Anyway...Both sides are known to have used chemical weapons in the past. It's odd how now, all of a sudden, these 250-to-1,500 casualties get such attention, when there are now an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths in Syria in the past two years. What changed? Who stands to benefit if things escalate? This isn't a logical moment for the Assad regime to break out the chemicals - they were doing pretty good!

Aug 30, 2013#37

Shakey

Bubble181 said:
This isn't a logical moment for the Assad regime to break out the chemicals - they were doing pretty good!

I don't get this either. He may not be doing great, but he knows if he uses chemical weapons he's done. If he doesn't use them, he can go on killing as many people as he wants and no one will step in.

Aug 30, 2013#38

Bubble181

In the "however..." category:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

Incendiary bombs (thought to be napalm), dropped from a plane (so almost certainly not the rebels), on a schoolyard - full of children as it was the end of the school day.

WARNING - the video has some disturbing footage of adults and children half-burned and untreated. Watch on your own responsibility.

Aug 30, 2013#39

SpecialKO

While I understand the "good of the people argument" for Syria (and understood it with Iraq), I think it's massively arrogant for us to know what "good of the people" means in the context of anywhere that isn't the US (and we don't do such a good job of it here all the time). Does it mean we support the rebels? Assad? Set up a puppet government? Divide the country in two? Head a Peacekeeper mission? Let France take the lead and provide logistical support? "Good of the people" always sounds like righteous in principle, but it's the practicalities that actually determine how "good" everything turns out, and its the practicalities that we don't have figured out here. We don't even know who used chemical weapons or what kind they were or what their status is (the same lack of info that informed my decision to be absolutely against going into Iraq in '03).

And, quite frankly, we don't have the moral authority or credibility to do any such thing. Not even counting our contentious history of foreign policy-making in the Middle East (and our deliberate ignoring of Saddam's chemical weapons usage in particular), we stood to the side while hundreds of thousands of people in Syria died. That may or may not have been the right decision, but getting militarily involved now because a fraction of those were killed with chemical weapons smacks of self-interest far more than any supposed humanitarian drive. If we're going to go nation-building again, we need international goodwill and support and we just don't have it because of the things we've already gotten involved in.

Short of actual UN Security Council support, pretty much the only thing that I think we can do right now is set up massive humanitarian aid structures just outside the country and funnel medicine, food, and doctors into the country under a UN flag.

Aug 30, 2013#40

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
Short of actual UN Security Council support, pretty much the only thing that I think we can do right now is set up massive humanitarian aid structures just outside the country and funnel medicine, food, and doctors into the country under a UN flag.

Putting far, far more pressure on some of those involved and actively try to help in the Geneva-2 talks instead of seemingly sabotaging them alongside the others involved.
Currently, the Syrian government is "willing" to talk because of Russian pressure, but insists Assad can stay, at least until elections (like that's gonna happen). The opposition, on the other hand, has ever more demands (some of which make little sense), leaving very little wiggle room (insisting on negotiators who don't have blood on their hands, but who do have military power, is asking for the impossible.
Anyway, the US is making things even more difficult, by excluding Iran from the table and makign heavy demands as well - meanwhile, the US (and EU, because this is something we're at least as guilty of) isn't putting any pressure on any rebel factions, or anyone else for that matter, to cease fire or to at least honor a truce. Kerry's operating pretty much without either a carrot or a stick - that's not effective or even really useful.

Aug 30, 2013#41

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
Kerry's operating pretty much without either a carrot or a stick - that's not effective or even really useful.

Well what'd you expect from John Kerry, competence? Kerry is to international politics as Marcel Marceau is to radio.

Aug 31, 2013#42

TommiR

Here are Kerry's remarks on the situation, delivered on Aug 30th.

And here is a link to the unclassified version of the US government assessment on the incident:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/164267522/08-30-2013-USG-Assessment-on-Syria-1

Sep 1, 2013#43

GasBandit

Congressional Approval? Obama don't need no steenkin' congressional approval!

(At least that's what a "senior Obama administration official" is telling Jim Acosta @ CNN)

So intelligence sources which Democrats have been calling lying, warmongering catspaws for the last decade are suddenly now believable (but "no slam dunk") and so now we're performing acts of war without the approval of the only constitutional body allowed to authorize war?

How's that nobel peace prize for not being Bush looking now? I know war is only OK when a democrat is in the white house, but jeez Louise, even my jaded self can barely believe the hypocrisy on display.

Sep 1, 2013#44

Charlie Don't Surf

i hope the obstructionist republicans win for once

thanks, obama

Sep 1, 2013#45

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
i hope the obstructionist republicans win for once

thanks, obama

The real game of chicken will come if the House votes NOT to authorize the use of force, but Obama issues the order anyway. Then the military gets to decide whose orders to follow.

Though, I guess it wasn't much of a decision previously, given how things progressed in Libya.

Sep 1, 2013#46

Espy

Man, I am... stunned. So, obviously this is not an official poll or anything, but suddenly my FB feed is filled with LIBERALS screaming that we MUST go to war and CONSERVATIVES who think it's a TERRIBLE idea. Not all of them obviously, but a lot of them on both sides.

What the HELL is going on? I can't help but feel this is going to boil down to a case of "It's my guy so I'm for it" and "It's not my guy so I'm against it". Which is really disappointing.

Sep 1, 2013#47

Krisken

Espy said:
Man, I am... stunned. So, obviously this is not an official poll or anything, but suddenly my FB feed is filled with LIBERALS screaming that we MUST go to war and CONSERVATIVES who think it's a TERRIBLE idea. Not all of them obviously, but a lot of them on both sides.

What the HELL is going on? I can't help but feel this is going to boil down to a case of "It's my guy so I'm for it" and "It's not my guy so I'm against it". Which is really disappointing.

I hate people so much.

Sep 1, 2013#48

Officer_Charon

We have no business going in there as a sole participant. If a United Nations task force could have been assembled, then perhaps I would have been okay with going in.

The United States is NOT the world's police force.

I mean... what's happening is horrible. And it happens to be happening in amidst a massive powder keg, like all things Arab-related, where a false step could trigger something truly massive. Doing nothing is clearly not a palatable option, but...

I... I don't have words to clearly work through my chain of thought on this... I've deleted and re-typed it multiple times, but there's just no way that I can write what I'm thinking without coming off as some ogre.

Sep 1, 2013#49

Krisken

I'll say it OC. We're tired. Tired of war, tired of being the bad guys. Tired of having our fingers in every fucking pie. Tired of risking our kids in wars across the world. Tired of finding out we are lied to. Tired of being led to war by our politicians, other countries who can't seem to get their shit together.

Mostly, we're tired of feeling tired.

Sep 1, 2013#50

strawman

We do not have the capability to resolve the problem. We may be the strongest military in the world, and if it could be solved with a dozen bombs and that's it, we'd do it in a heart beat. If we knew it could be fixed with a few years, several thousand lives, and dozens of billions, then sure.

But we could throw all that and more at it, and it would not be fixed.

At best we'd only delay and complicate things further.

I don't care if it hurts our image if its the right thing to do, but the reality is that there's no action we can take that would positively affect Syria in a long term manner.

If Russia and china were on board, ie a UN mandate, then, and only then, could we get anywhere close to having a possible solution.

Sep 2, 2013#51

TommiR

GasBandit said:
Congressional Approval? Obama don't need no steenkin' congressional approval!

Isn't POTUS launching military strikes without congressional approval pretty much par the course, though?

Seeking an OK from Congress might be a smart move on Obama's part. One of the few acceptable reasons that I can think of for launching the strikes is that similar 'red lines' have been drawn in nuclear disarmament talks with Iran, and if nothing follows from Syria's breach, then the iranians might take note. If Congress grants Obama the authorisation to launch, then it's a carte blanche for him in terms of negative consequences, and takes care of the domestic front. If they don't grant authorisation, then Obama can throw his hands in the air and say "hey, Congress said no". Might not help much with the iranians, but looks a lot better in terms of his own political career.

Another acceptable reason for interveintion that comes to my mind is the general notion that if you don't intervene, you give up the ability to influence events directly. Given Syria's past association with Iran, you might want to have a say as to who will come out on top there. But I'm not sure there are all that many options that are both good and realistic in the long run.

As regards to intervention on the grounds of stopping chemical weapons use against civilians, I agree with Bismarck:

Otto von Bismarck said:
For heaven's sake no sentimental alliances in which the consciousness of having performed a good deed furnishes the sole reward for our sacrifice.

Sep 2, 2013#52

SpecialKO

What we have right now is a 4-way proxy war with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia on one side, Russia and Iran on another, AQ and other Islamic militant groups on yet another, Hezbollah and other militant groups on yet another, and the actual Syrian participants of a variety of sectarian loyalties somewhere in the middle of all of that.

If it doesn't involve humanitarian aid or ceasefire negotiations, we should be staying the fuck out of it.

Sep 2, 2013#53

Hailey Knight

I hate to say it, but why are these atrocities more important than those the U.S. ignores in Africa on a daily basis? Genocide, civil war, ethnic cleansing--we don't do shit about one warlord or another.

It's disgusting what people do to each other, but we're not capable of solving the world's problems, whether or not we intervene. Why are some ignored while others get big-time attention? We can do the Iraq dance again, or we can play Cold War-era Afghanistan, or we can do like the rest of the world--nothing. There's no good action. It may be best to wait and see. We do that with plenty of other conflicts. What is the difference?

Sep 2, 2013#54

TommiR

Quotemander Prime said:
Why are some ignored while others get big-time attention? We can do the Iraq dance again, or we can play Cold War-era Afghanistan, or we can do like the rest of the world--nothing. There's no good action. It may be best to wait and see. We do that with plenty of other conflicts. What is the difference?

The difference is Interests at Stake. Why would the United States, or any other country for that matter, do anything and in the process piss off people unnecessarily if they don't have some sort of a dog in the fight?

Even if you look at things from a moral perspective, the leaders have responsibilities towards those that they lead. Why should the heads of nations place their own people in harms way, if it were not necessary or sufficiently advantageous from their own country's perspective to do so? They aren't or should not be callous with the lives of their own soldiers, the people who put faith in them to lead well, so they shouldn't send in the troops to fight and die without a damn good reason.

Or at least that's the way it should be, in my opinion.

Sep 2, 2013#55

Hailey Knight

TommiR said:
The difference is Interests at Stake. Why would the United States, or any other country for that matter, do anything and in the process piss off people unnecessarily if they don't have some sort of a dog in the fight?

Even if you look at things from a moral perspective, the leaders have responsibilities towards those that they lead. Why should the heads of nations place their own people in harms way, if it were not necessary or sufficiently advantageous from their own country's perspective to do so? They aren't or should not be callous with the lives of their own soldiers, the people who put faith in them to lead well, so they shouldn't send in the troops to fight and die without a damn good reason.

Or at least that's the way it should be, in my opinion.

I agree; what I'm saying is that it seems the U.S. is taking the moral stance in this situation as opposed to Interests at Stake. Why are we bothering to do so when ignoring so many other conflicts where the morally right thing to do might be to intervene? What makes this so special to Obama and co?

Sep 2, 2013#56

bhamv3

Quotemander Prime said:
I agree; what I'm saying is that it seems the U.S. is taking the moral stance in this situation as opposed to Interests at Stake. Why are we bothering to do so when ignoring so many other conflicts where the morally right thing to do might be to intervene? What makes this so special to Obama and co?

Distraction from the NSA thing?

Sep 2, 2013#57

AshburnerX

bhamv3 said:
Distraction from the NSA thing?

This was my thought too. They are latching onto this because it means they can pretend to be too busy to address the growing American concern over how much and what our government observes of us. After a few months it will blow over and then they can get back to business as usual.

Sep 3, 2013#58

TommiR

Quotemander Prime said:
I agree; what I'm saying is that it seems the U.S. is taking the moral stance in this situation as opposed to Interests at Stake. Why are we bothering to do so when ignoring so many other conflicts where the morally right thing to do might be to intervene? What makes this so special to Obama and co?

The rhetoric is about international treaties and moral outrage, true, but I suspect it serves to cover more pragmatic concerns. Some have voiced views that there may be domestic politics issues at play. My personal take is foreign policy, that the Obama administration backed themselves into a corner with their seemingly ill-considered remarks about chemical weapons use being a 'red line'. I don't think they specified the consequences to be military in nature, but that probably doesn't matter at this point, as anything short of a military strike will likely be viewed as the USA backing down.

Of course, assisting the jihadis in overthrowing the only middle-eastern ruler who is actually fighting them at the moment is a bit of a downside. I understand the majority of americans are against military action, so going to Congress with this might give Obama a way out.

Sep 3, 2013#59

sixpackshaker

Syria is a major financier for jihadist. There is just a new group of jihadist in town, that does not owe them allegiance.

Sep 3, 2013#60

GasBandit

John Boehner and Eric Cantor have both indicated their intention to support the authorization of the use of force in Syria.

WELP.

Sep 3, 2013#61

Gilgamesh

I'm loving the flip flopping on the Republican Talking Head side.

Obama is weak! He makes America look weak in the eyes of the world! This would have never happened under Bush/Reagan etc

-Obama announces possible strikes-

Obama is out of control! He just announces attacks without asking first! He thinks he's a dictator/emperor not a President!

-Obama announces he's going to talk to Congress before action-

Obama is weak! A real president would stick to his original decision and do what he says! He should have gone through with the strikes!

****

It's absolutely hysterical to me. It's better than the 24/7 comedy station most of the time. They may not represent what most Republicans really think, but they're the only thing that the public hears from the Republican side.

Sep 3, 2013#62

GasBandit

Was the Damascus chemical attack a false flag operation designed to "trick" the US into getting involved in opposition to Assad? As happened in Bosnia in 1995, apparently.

Sep 3, 2013#63

blotsfan

Gilgamesh said:
I'm loving the flip flopping on the Republican Talking Head side.

Obama is weak! He makes America look weak in the eyes of the world! This would have never happened under Bush/Reagan etc

-Obama announces possible strikes-

Obama is out of control! He just announces attacks without asking first! He thinks he's a dictator/emperor not a President!

-Obama announces he's going to talk to Congress before action-

Obama is weak! A real president would stick to his original decision and do what he says! He should have gone through with the strikes!

****

It's absolutely hysterical to me. It's better than the 24/7 comedy station most of the time. They may not represent what most Republicans really think, but they're the only thing that the public hears from the Republican side.

Isn't that exactly what the democrats do, but for their guy?

Sep 3, 2013#64

Morphine

We should do a bit more research about what the US military has done in other countries when "helping". More innocent children will die because of this, it has happened before because that's not really what matters the most to the US government. As @Shakey said: "We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different." The "US world police" is a very corrupt one.

Sep 3, 2013#65

Gilgamesh

blotsfan said:
Isn't that exactly what the democrats do, but for their guy?

Considering the volume of Republican talking radio heads vs Democratic, I'd say the Republican side is alot louder.

Sep 3, 2013#66

Krisken

I think it's hard to say who is louder at this point of time. It's not as if people are watching multiple perspectives of news anymore. Frankly, it's all horrifically biased.

Sep 3, 2013#67

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
I think it's hard to say who is louder at this point of time. It's not as if people are watching multiple perspectives of news anymore. Frankly, it's all horrifically biased.

It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

Sep 3, 2013#68

Krisken

Gilgamesh said:
It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

But does it matter? They talk till they are blue in the face, but does it convince people to join their cause? There are people on the left who are just as obnoxious as the d-bag talking heads on the right. Talking points may sway a couple idiots here or there, but it really isn't going to shift an entire populous.

We don't really gain anything by saying 'there are more of those guys than of these guys'. I really think that the best way to become above that kind of thing is to not play the game. We're not on a 'side' when it comes to politics, other than what is best for the country and in its best interest. The sooner we can get people to realize we're all on the same side, the sooner we can drop all the petty bickering and find solutions.

Sep 3, 2013#69

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

Keep in mind that in your market you are surrounded by republican talking heads. I'm quite certain that democratic talking heads are more widely available in other markets where consumers demand them.

I'm not convinced that either machine is actually "winning" at talking head wars.

Sep 3, 2013#70

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

Speaking as a member of the radio broadcast industry, TV's viewership has radio's listenership outstripped by so many orders of magnitude it isn't even a valid comparison.

Sep 4, 2013#71

AshburnerX

None of it is about persuading people. It's all about reenforcing the views of the listener/viewer, for better or worse.

Sep 4, 2013#72

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
None of it is about persuading people. It's all about reenforcing the views of the listener/viewer, for better or worse.

Unfortunately.

In other news, many left and European sources were saying that this might be an attack launched by the rebels to draw in the US (as has been stated in this thread). Now Rasmussen (secretary-general of NATO) has come out and said he's seen definite and absolute proof it was the regime.
This may mean very little to the Americans around here (since who cares about some Danish guy?), but it's a bit more problematic for European sources and especially many on the center-left. Rasmussen's about 55x more trustworthy and believable than any American politician who treats Syria purely as something domestic. Heck, even I'm tempted to believe him! Which does somehow raise the question of "why not show those clear proofs to the Russians and Chinese?", but I suppose you don't want to reveal sources. ANyway, we'll see what happens....

Sep 4, 2013#73

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
Which does somehow raise the question of "why not show those clear proofs to the Russians and Chinese?", but I suppose you don't want to reveal sources. ANyway, we'll see what happens....

Because they don't care. They don't have to pretend to care about the welfare of the rest of the world... all they have to do is extend their power base into the region to secure their own oil supplies/ability to project power and then they will look strong to their people domestically. This means supporting the regime with all the fire power, not the rag-tag group of rebels that will basically destroy the country's ability to function for several years. Unfortunately for Russia and China, any involvement by the US complicates things. Now the Russians have to worry about losing their only port in the region (and they will, if the rebels win, because the US will make it happen) and the Chinese have to worry about how this will effect their oil prices.

Basically, things are kinda fucked for Russia and China. Their only hope now is that Syria becomes such quagmire that nothing is accomplished or that they can win over the fascist rebel groups from outside the country. If they don't, they will lose everything.

Sep 4, 2013#74

GasBandit

We did show our proof to the Russians. They said they found it "unconvincing." That's exactly how that would go if our evidence was ironclad or completely, transparently phoney. The Russians don't care about what's true, they only care about what they think suits their own personal interests - and they've been backing Bashar al-Assad since day one. And now that it looks like we're going to be supporting the rebels, they've already said they'll up their material support to Assad to counter it.

Hooray proxy wars!

Sep 4, 2013#75

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
We did show our proof to the Russians. They said they found it "unconvincing." That's exactly how that would go if our evidence was ironclad or completely, transparently phoney. The Russians don't care about what's true, they only care about what they think suits their own personal interests - and they've been backing Bashar al-Assad since day one. And now that it looks like we're going to be supporting the rebels, they've already said they'll up their material support to Assad to counter it.

Hooray proxy wars!

And what a pointless proxy war it is. Russia doesn't have the resources to wage proxy wars like it did before the Fall, especially compared to our capability right now. Even with China helping it's doubtful they have the kind of tools they'd need to give the army to make a difference.

Sep 4, 2013#76

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
And what a pointless proxy war it is. Russia doesn't have the resources to wage proxy wars like it did before the Fall, especially compared to our capability right now. Even with China helping it's doubtful they have the kind of tools they'd need to give the army to make a difference.

This is such a low tech war, it does not matter. Russia will make tons of money on this, because we normally give away Russian weapons to our allies anyway.

Hopefully this time we will buy our AK's from Poland or the Czech Republic.

Sep 4, 2013#77

strawman

AshburnerX said:
And what a pointless proxy war it is. Russia doesn't have the resources to wage proxy wars like it did before the Fall, especially compared to our capability right now. Even with China helping it's doubtful they have the kind of tools they'd need to give the army to make a difference.

Which is why they're working so hard to stop others from taking action, which is why the US and France are applying so much pressure. Going to congress is merely another step in a game to see how hard they're going to push us. But we haven't committed to the idea of putting troops on the ground, and with all their personnel and hardware in residential areas a real bombing campaign is politically untenable. The bombing they can do, other than as a show of force, won't accomplish anything.

The next step would be a no-fly zone, and while that might actually have some effect it would be expensive to maintain.

What they really need is multi-lateral peacekeeping from the UN, but that's never going to pass, not with Russia and China's vetos, but even if those didn't exist the UK has already backed down, and everyone except the US and France are on the fence.

Sep 4, 2013#78

GasBandit

The whole thing is political posturing, as far as the US goes. All this very public "We're gonna! We're SO gonna!" for days and now weeks is giving Assad time to move his sensitive targets into population zones and get the human shields up and in position. If our government was really serious about fixing the Assad problem, it would have quickly and quietly done so already. But all the cable news kabuki shows how really it's just a great big flashing-and-spinning-lights distraction from domestic issues and scandals.

Sep 4, 2013#79

Covar

GasBandit said:
The whole thing is political posturing, as far as the US goes. All this very public "We're gonna! We're SO gonna!" for days and now weeks is giving Assad time to move his sensitive targets into population zones and get the human shields up and in position. If our government was really serious about fixing the Assad problem, it would have quickly and quietly done so already. But all the cable news kabuki shows how really it's just a great big flashing-and-spinning-lights distraction from domestic issues and scandals.

And it's working great.

Sep 4, 2013#80

Necronic

It really does bother me how long it's taken to strike.

Rand Paul is a complete piece of shit by the way.

Sep 4, 2013#81

GasBandit

Necronic said:
It really does bother me how long it's taken to strike.

Rand Paul is a complete piece of shit by the way.

What's he doin'?

Sep 4, 2013#82

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
But all the cable news kabuki shows how really it's just a great big flashing-and-spinning-lights distraction from domestic issues and scandals.

Which is horrible, horrible, horrible as dozens if not hundreds die each day.

Sep 4, 2013#83

Charlie Don't Surf

I agree with any and all Rand Paul hatred, but this issue is, for me, the proverbial broken clock right twice a day situation.

Sep 4, 2013#84

strawman

Well, forcing Assad and the rebels to protect their hardware should, at least temporarily, slow down their fighting.

Sep 4, 2013#85

Necronic

Really he's just doing what we should expect, he's on isolationist.

Btw, watch fox news of you have a chance. They have no idea what to do right now since they are caught between Boehner and the tea party.

They wen from being pro-strike (while criticizing the delays Obama has made) to being isolationist (implying a strike would provoke retaliation from Russia) in one 5 minute bit.

They have no idea how to straddle this fence. Eat a huge bag of dicks Fox. This is what you get.

Sep 4, 2013#86

Eriol

stienman said:
Well, forcing Assad and the rebels to protect their hardware should, at least temporarily, slow down their fighting.

I doubt it. They'll keep the command centers and such just where they were, they'll just house as many women and children in the same buildings as possible, so that anybody attacking it looks as monstrous as possible.

It's the same as this old image, just different nationalities:

Sep 4, 2013#87

GasBandit

Yeah, I googled up Rand Paul stuff and didn't find anything really shitty. Locking horns with McCain, etc.

Sep 4, 2013#88

Terrik

Necronic said:
Really he's just doing what we should expect, he's on isolationist.

Btw, watch fox news of you have a chance. They have no idea what to do right now since they are caught between Boehner and the tea party.

They wen from being pro-strike (while criticizing the delays Obama has made) to being isolationist (implying a strike would provoke retaliation from Russia) in one 5 minute bit.

They have no idea how to straddle this fence. Eat a huge bag of dicks Fox. This is what you get.

What show? The same personality made that statement within the same 5 minute segment?

Sep 4, 2013#89

Necronic

Ok so I thought I would check on the other republican pundits. They seem just as confused as to how to attack Obama without attacking Boehner.

Hannity is criticizing him for only now appreciating the need for congressional approval. I guess he dissapeared of Reagan's actions in Grenada as well.

Rush Limbaugh is implying the whole thing is a false flag operation by the white house (it turns out WE gassed Syria)

Glenn beck is....well Glenn beck is openly siding with the tea party. No surprise.

Sep 4, 2013#90

Dave

I'm totally against this, for a number of reasons.

Neither Assad nor the rebel groups are good guys. But if I had to choose, Assad is the better choice. The rebels are peppered with Al-Qaeda and other ultra-conservative religious groups that would clamp down and clamp down hard on the populace. These are NOT good guys.
I don't trust the government's "proof" any longer. I've heard this song and dance before. Obama seems so focused on attacking that it seems to me it is proof for the sake of attacking instead of proof for the sake of the truth.
Without the backing of the UN - even if Russia is the only abstainer from the security council - it will be nothing more than a unilateral attack. I'd say that would be an illegal action.

I'm NOT isolationist. But I'm also not able to understand this type of attack. It serves no national interest and does not fulfill what I see as a justifiable war. We are not the world's police force. If the UN does not want to go in or override the Russian veto, then I don't see why we have to do it.

(No, it has nothing to do with my son.)

Sep 4, 2013#91

strawman

The senate has a draft proposal to be put to a vote soon which has a maximum window of 60 days for any action, and disallows ground forces.

Putin is making veiled threats about supporting Iran more (with missile defense systems in particular) if action is taken in Syria, but has not said anything else about what Russia might do if the US does take action.

France will not vote until they know the outcome of the US Congressional vote.

Everyone looks to the US, waiting and watching. Which is ridiculous because the US is corrupt inside and out. How many politicians are happy the NSA stuff is being swept under the rug? Can we compare syria, who has killed 0.3% of their population with chemical weapons to the US who spies on 100% of its citizens? Is loss of life worse than loss of liberty? How many corporations in the US stand to profit from even a limited engagement in the middle east? How many have their pocketbooks open to congressional representatives? How are we idly standing by as Fukishima poisons the world's oceans with highly radioactive waste? How are we contemplating another military engagement when we refuse to give returning soldiers adequate mental health care?

The stark reality is that even if we decapitate the Assad regime, the power vacuum would likely result in Russia gaining more power over Syria, and our enemies gaining a stronger foothold in the region as it becomes more destabilized - particularly if we aren't committed to filling that vacuum ourselves.

Assad may be the aggressor, but he's clearly not Russia's puppet - he's only using them insofar as they align with his goals - and the question we have to ask ourselves is "What is our goal"

Is it truly "How do we get the murder to stop" or is it "how do we bring democracy and freedom to a people fighting for it."

If it's the first, Supporting Assad is likely the quickest way forward - Russia and China can't easily veto US support of the side they're supporting.

If it's the second, it's impossible. Witness Iraq and Afghanistan. We take our troops out and democracy leaves with us. Now we're largely turning a blind eye as they both devolve back into the warlord/feudal system they had prior where might makes right.

Are we really just trying to stop a single murder in the park, or are we trying to make the park a safe place to jog?

Aside from all that, very few of the groups fighting Assad are actually interested in real freedom and democracy. They are giving us lip service on that front to attract us to their "cause" but few of them, if put in power, would actually follow through, or be able to follow through.

Sep 4, 2013#92

Charlie Don't Surf

Fuck the (world) police

Sep 4, 2013#93

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck the (world) police

Succinct and insightful.

Sep 4, 2013#94

GasBandit

I've seen polls that say the American populace opposes military action in Syria by 2 to 1. Surprise, surprise, our political overlords are disconnected from the electorate they purport to serve, and are going full bore autistic autopilot on a crash course with tragedy and misfortune. There is no US interest served by helping either side in the Syrian civil war, and "stopping the killing" is so trite as to be cynical - as noted previously, there's so much killing going on by tyrants/zealots all over the world that we don't even bother mentioning, that the excuse rings hollow.

Sep 4, 2013#95

Dave

GasBandit said:
I've seen polls that say the American populace opposes military action in Syria by 2 to 1. Surprise, surprise, our political overlords are disconnected from the electorate they purport to serve, and are going full bore autistic autopilot on a crash course with tragedy and misfortune. There is no US interest served by helping either side in the Syrian civil war, and "stopping the killing" is so trite as to be cynical - as noted previously, there's so much killing going on by tyrants/zealots all over the world that we don't even bother mentioning, that the excuse rings hollow.

I agree 100% with GasBandit.

Holy shit.

Sep 4, 2013#96

GasBandit

And let's just throw this out there for John Kerry's assurances there will be "no boots on the ground."

“There is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration. No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control.”
-John Kerry in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971

Sep 4, 2013#97

Krisken

Dave said:
I agree 100% with GasBandit.

Holy shit.

There there, Dave. We'll get through this. I'm sure you'll disagree with him on something in the next 5 minutes. Till then, stay strong.

Sep 4, 2013#98

Necronic

GasBandit said:
I've seen polls that say the American populace opposes military action in Syria by 2 to 1. Surprise, surprise, our political overlords are disconnected from the electorate they purport to serve, and are going full bore autistic autopilot on a crash course with tragedy and misfortune. There is no US interest served by helping either side in the Syrian civil war, and "stopping the killing" is so trite as to be cynical - as noted previously, there's so much killing going on by tyrants/zealots all over the world that we don't even bother mentioning, that the excuse rings hollow.

If people didn't want this they should have spoken up when the chemical weapons treaties were signed. We should have all stood up and said "you know what, I don't like chemical weapons, but I'm not willing to do anything about so fuck it".

Fuck that. I am so god damned tired of everyone saying they are for something and doing nothing about it.

Words. Words. Fucking limp useless words. Words only mean something when backed up by action. This is something the current Internet generation of anonymous tough guys don't get.

Here's the deal:

-Chemical weapons are fucking evil
-our intel is as good as its going to get
-it's time to man the fuck up and do what we said we would do.

Also what in the actual fuck does the NSA have to do with any of this? Did you seriously just act like NSA wiretapping is worse than gassing children?

What is wrong with you people?[DOUBLEPOST=1378315386,1378315208][/DOUBLEPOST]And the idea that there is no US interest served by this is so far from true it's laughable. Here's what it means:

When we say stop or we'll shoot, you damn well better stop.

Do any of you even get that that's how world peace works? MAD has kept us safe only because the world knows that there are people out there that will follow through on their promises.[DOUBLEPOST=1378315959][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, while I would rather the US lead through dialogue and diplomacy, when it comes to dictators I am perfectly fine with us leading through fear.

How many people here cried for Gadaffi?

Sep 4, 2013#99

Dave

Killing a bunch of innocent civilians - which is exactly what will happen if we bomb - based on intelligence that I don't trust seems to me to be folly.

We're going to bomb Mussolini to put Hitler in power. It's not our fucking job to step in here. It's not a US treaty against chemical weapons, it's a WORLD treaty. Why the fuck are we the ones who have to go in and do this? This has GOT to come from the UN or it means nothing. MAD is dumb. It's the international equivalent of "Let's give everyone a gun! That'll stop all crimes!" It just doesn't work.[DOUBLEPOST=1378316076,1378316027][/DOUBLEPOST]Deposing Gadaffi was a mistake as well.

Sep 4, 2013#100

Covar

[EDIT] Dammit @Dave, now I have to quote the post.

Necronic said:
If people didn't want this they should have spoken up when the chemical weapons treaties were signed. We should have all stood up and said "you know what, I don't like chemical weapons, but I'm not willing to do anything about so fuck it".

Fuck that. I am so god damned tired of everyone saying they are for something and doing nothing about it.

Words. Words. Fucking limp useless words. Words only mean something when backed up by action. This is something the current Internet generation of anonymous tough guys don't get.

Here's the deal:

-Chemical weapons are fucking evil
-our intel is as good as its going to get
-it's time to man the fuck up and do what we said we would do.

Also what in the actual fuck does the NSA have to do with any of this? Did you seriously just act like NSA wiretapping is worse than gassing children?

What is wrong with you people?[DOUBLEPOST=1378315386,1378315208][/DOUBLEPOST]And the idea that there is no US interest served by this is so far from true it's laughable. Here's what it means:

When we say stop or we'll shoot, you damn well better stop.

Do any of you even get that that's how world peace works? MAD has kept us safe only because the world knows that there are people out there that will follow through on their promises.[DOUBLEPOST=1378315959][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, while I would rather the US lead through dialogue and diplomacy, when it comes to dictators I am perfectly fine with us leading through fear.

How many people here cried for Gadaffi?

You're only giving a shit about this because you're being told that you need to give a shit about this right now or something terrible will happen immediately! Think of the CHILDREN! If you don't think that people in Washington are driving up the attention on this in order to distract people from the very real violations of the fourth amendment you are a fool. Your idea of how getting involved in Syria benefits US interests is incredibly abstract, about 5 steps removed, and frankly laughable. What makes your post so particularly hilarious though is that every argument given can be applied to the Iraq situation in 2004. If I didn't know any better I'd say you were trying to make a parody post.

Sep 4, 2013#101

Shakey

Necronic said:
What is wrong with you people?

After Iraq, there isn't a whole lot of trust in what the government says is "proof". If they want us to get behind this, they need to make their case to us. They lost our trust, and need to earn it back. Show us the proof.

Also, what are we going to do? Most likely launch some missiles and that will be it. It will accomplish nothing except to kill more people, at the best we'll assist another radical leader in getting into power. In 10 years when they've had a chance to recover, we'll be right back here. Trying to out an evil dictator that's killing people. We've created a cycle of war in the area.

Look at the area in the past 30 years, and tell me anything we've done has helped. We're going to go half assed in this so that we can feel better about ourselves and pat ourselves on the back. It's bullshit and we're going to hurt the people of that country more than help when we leave them with an even more radical leader and say "Welp, we're done here!"

Sep 4, 2013#102

Dave

The rebels are WAY worse than Assad.

Sep 4, 2013#103

Necronic

The Iraq situation had very questionable intelligence. If your concern is the intelligence then I totally understand why you wouldn't want to strike. I don't have that concern anymore, and we can discuss the merits of the intelligence if you want.

And unlike the rest of you guys, I am capable of walking and chewing gum and the same time. Do you think our role in the world immediately shuts down in the case of a scandal? Oh god the president shot his load on some intern. Guess we don't have to worry about Serbia now. Here's the reality: the NSA shit matters. The Syria situation matters. They aren't mutually exclusive.

And yeah, Washington probably IS driving up this issue as a distraction. You know what? Thank fucking god. This matters. This matters so much. One of the most evil things we have done as a country is what we did to the Khurds.

Chemical warfare has always been and should always be a zero tolerance issue. We've dropped the ball in the past. That's no excuse to drop the ball now. Previous failures are no justification for their repitition.

Sep 4, 2013#104

Dave

What the fuck are you talking about? We couldn't have given a shit that tens of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by conventional weapons. Children blown apart by shelling neighborhoods with mortars. Whole villages taken out & slaughtered, the men decapitated and the women raped to death. And yet we did nothing. And not just in Syria. I'm talking Rwanda, North Korea, India, Kyrgyzstan, ... The list goes on and on. But suddenly someone uses gas - who is undetermined because they showed us physical evidence of the Iraqi danger as well - and we get all high & mighty and want to go in guns a-blazing? This is NOT the job of the US as an independent entity! This has GOT to be a UN mandate or it's nothing more than imperialistic posturing.

You know my political viewpoints. I'm more of a liberal than a conservative. I voted for Obama - twice! But this is seeming so much like a parallel of shit we already went through. We have hindsight for that conflict, and those who refuse to learn from history....

Sep 4, 2013#105

Shakey

And what happens when a new radical leader takes power and STILL has the chemical weapons Assad has? Us bombing them isn't going to do shit. If we want to create real change we have to spend billions and put troops on the ground for years. Even then, you can see how well it worked for Iraq.

No, I'm not OK with using our military resources to simply put another dictator in power. If we want to stop this, then lets stop it. Launching missiles and then walking away is far worse than letting them figure this out themselves.

Sep 4, 2013#106

Necronic

Dave said:
What the fuck are you talking about? We couldn't have given a shit that tens of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by conventional weapons. Children blown apart by shelling neighborhoods with mortars. Whole villages taken out & slaughtered, the men decapitated and the women raped to death. And yet we did nothing. And not just in Syria. I'm talking Rwanda, North Korea, India, Kyrgyzstan, ... The list goes on and on. But suddenly someone uses gas - who is undetermined because they showed us physical evidence of the Iraqi danger as well - and we get all high & mighty and want to go in guns a-blazing? This is NOT the job of the US as an independent entity! This has GOT to be a UN mandate or it's nothing more than imperialistic posturing.

This is like the very core of the Geneva Convention. We do care about some things more than others. However, genocide is something we normally will intervene on, if its with conventional weapons or not.

And yeah, the fact that we did nothing in Rwanda and the other places is atrocious. I seem to understand that more than the rest of you, because I am saying we do something about it this time. You guys seem ok with nothing being done, yet again. We stayed out of Rwanda for the same reasons you are arguing here.

It was wrong then

It's wrong now.[DOUBLEPOST=1378318586,1378318377][/DOUBLEPOST]As for who comes next. That's. That's hard. It would be hard either way. If you want the easy solution then just back Assad. He's safe right? The truth is that there are no easy answers here. Sorry.

Sep 4, 2013#107

Shakey

Necronic said:
As for who comes next. That's. That's hard. It would be hard either way. If you want the easy solution then just back Assad. He's safe right? The truth is that there are no easy answers here. Sorry.

No, the easy solution is to lob some bombs and say we did something so we can feel better about it. Then we can shrug and say "At least we tried!" when it gets even worse. Taking action just to make us feel better is a horrible excuse.[DOUBLEPOST=1378318999,1378318902][/DOUBLEPOST]Not worrying about who comes next, or what they'll do, is how we made the middle east what it is today. It's a horrible strategy, but no one cares because it feeds the war machine.

Sep 4, 2013#108

sixpackshaker

You can't back Assad because he has the blood of American Soldiers on his hands.

Wikipedia said:
Throughout the Iraq War, Syria has reportedly served as a conduit for foreign fighters intending to enter Iraq to fight US, coalition, or Iraqi military and police forces.[7] US officials have complained that militants and their reinforcement and logistics networks have been able to operate openly in Syria, and that the Syrian government has not made sufficient effort to stop it. The US says that militants fly into Damascus and then, with the help of emplaced networks, travel across the Syrian border into Iraq, mainly through the city of Ramadi.[7] According to the US military, the foreign militants were responsible for 80% to 90% of the suicide attacks in Iraq, mainly targeting Iraqi civilians.[8]

Sep 4, 2013#109

Necronic

The do nothing option is worse. We knew that the day Assad started gassing civilians.

Sep 4, 2013#110

AshburnerX

There is also the fact that backing Assad would kind of be like backing the Iranian shah all over again... it would just stir up the Iranians even further, seeing America protect a tyrannical government that tortures and murders it's own people. It's an image we don't want to reenforce in the region.

Sep 4, 2013#111

Necronic

If you want to really understand why chemical weapons are so uniquely horrible, ask yourself this:

Why did the Nazi's gas the Jews instead of shooting them?

Sep 4, 2013#112

Shakey

Necronic said:
The do nothing option is worse. We knew that the day Assad started gassing civilians.

How do you know that? How do you know what the next leader will do when we won't even be there to guide them? Or provide security and oversight. No good will come of any of this. But at least our conscience will be clear. :rolleyes:

Sep 4, 2013#113

strawman

Necronic said:
As for who comes next. That's. That's hard. It would be hard either way. If you want the easy solution then just back Assad. He's safe right? The truth is that there are no easy answers here. Sorry.

That's what I was just going to ask, actually. As far as I can tell there is a victim being murdered in the park while we watching. Two or more people are doing the murder, but it's just a play while they actually attack each other. Further, two of the bystanders are not watching the fight, they're watching us, arms crossed with an expression that says if we interfere they will react against us.

We don't care about the attackers. We don't care about the bystander/guards. We care about the person caught in the middle, dying in front of us.

That's where the analogy breaks down though. Solutions can be found in this situation. Kill everyone that's attacking, and preventing that safety of the victim.

We can't just take out Russia, China, Assad, and the rebels, though.

Even if we have incontrovertible proof that they're all in on it, we simply don't have the resources, power, or political will to do so.

Bombing them is the equivalent of throwing teargas on everyone at the park and hoping people come to their senses when they recover. They won't.

Putting boots on the ground, enforcing peace through the use of air and ground forces, making everyone sit down at a table and sign a treaty, then leaving peacekeeping forces in there for a decade is the only real solution, but if Russia and China continue to support one side or the other above peaceful negotiations, no one is going to sit down.

Our political leaders don't have the will of the American public on their side, which is going to undermine their credibility.

It's not just possession of WMDs - they are actively using WMDs. Not even on each other, but on citizens!

But.

What can we do? The cures everyone seem to be suggesting are worse than the illness. Yes, thousands of people died in the latest chemical weapon attack. A single bombing sortie on military targets within civilian shielded areas, though, could easily kill twice that.

And we don't even have the UK on our side. Congress may not even pass the bill.

If we had 3-4 people facing off with the bystander/guards, they may not like the action, but they wouldn't oppose it so strongly. The UK stepping back has actually strengthened Russia and China's resolve.

We need more people on our side. Until then any cure we attempt isn't likely to help, and may actually hurt the situation more.

Sep 4, 2013#114

Shakey

I'm not saying backing Assad is a better option either, or even that we should think about it.

Sep 4, 2013#115

Necronic

We can destroy chemical weapon manufacturing and storage facilities. That's all this is about. It would have been easier if Obama hadn't waited for approval and had just struck without warning. If you want to criticize something criticize that. It was a mistake to wait.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up regime change. This isn't about helping the rebels or hurting Assad(edit: ok there will be some punitive damage). This is about destroying chemical weapons.

You guys can't see the trees for the forest.

Sep 4, 2013#116

Covar

Necronic said:
If you want to really understand why chemical weapons are so uniquely horrible, ask yourself this:

Why did the Nazi's gas the Jews instead of shooting them?

Cheaper, and didn't waste resources that were far more valuable on the front.

Sep 4, 2013#117

Shakey

stienman said:
Putting boots on the ground, enforcing peace through the use of air and ground forces, making everyone sit down at a table and sign a treaty, then leaving peacekeeping forces in there for a decade is the only real solution, but if Russia and China continue to support one side or the other above peaceful negotiations, no one is going to sit down.

Pretty much this, but we saw how well it worked in Iraq. Honestly, unless we're willing to really commit to this, anything we do will most likely make it worse.

Sep 4, 2013#118

Necronic

Now, if you want to talk about the actual trees? I don't know if we have the ability to destroy these facilities without dispersing more sarin. I hope to god we can, and I hope we don't attempt this without knowing we can. But that involves high tech munitions that I don't think are public knowledge (if they exist or not.)

Good article on it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

Sep 4, 2013#119

strawman

Necronic said:
We can destroy chemical weapon manufacturing and storage facilities.

1) Easier said than done (we don't have enough good intelligence to do this well, nevermind completely)
2) Problematic as physical destruction of such facilities may result in huge plumes of toxins floating around for some time after the destruction.

Sep 4, 2013#120

Necronic

Ninja'd you steinman

Covar said:
Cheaper, and didn't waste resources that were far more valuable on the front.

Gas is more cost effective and more efficient than a bullet or a man with a club. It is more efficient than burning people alive. It is more efficient than starving them to death. It is literally the most efficient killing machine known to man.

It is fuckig evil.

Sep 4, 2013#121

strawman

Necronic said:
Now, if you want to talk about the actual trees? I don't know if we have the ability to destroy these facilities without dispersing more sarin. I hope to god we can, and I hope we don't attempt this without knowing we can. But that involves high tech munitions that I don't think are public knowledge (if they exist or not.)

Good article on it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

That would be good, but this would be like a weapons test that, if it went wrong, could have terrible consequences.

What's worse than Assad dispersing sarin? The US dispersing Sarin and other chemicals which don't kill but instead cripple and give birth defects to everyone nearby.[DOUBLEPOST=1378320786,1378320665][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:
It is literally the most efficient killing machine known to man.

Biological weapons are more efficient than chemical weapons, but I suppose they're all grouped together. Consider the Europeans giving gifts of illnesses to the Native Americans early on.

Sep 4, 2013#122

Necronic

The only difference with Bio is that it takes a huge infrastructure and advanced tech to pull off. Chemical weapons take early 20th centur tech to make. Anyone can make them. That's why they scare me more (for now at least.)

I'm a chemist, and I keep this article around to remind just how easy it is to accidentally gas yourself:

http://www.brewracingframes.com/id75.htm

Sep 4, 2013#123

sixpackshaker

For the storage facilities for the WMD, we will not bomb those. We will likely take out the air defense (since we will be bombing them for two months,) command and control (to slow their chances at rebuilding the air defenses,) the ministry of information (to really blind them,) the air force and whatever loose artillery there is outside the city centers.

It will be folly to knock out the the stores of WMD, because you can't. We would end up spreading it around further than if Syria used it on purpose.

Sep 4, 2013#124

GasBandit

@Necronic, your frothing, vengeful idealism is way off base. There are despotic regimes oppressing or killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians everywhere from Burma to Zimbabwe, and yet we're not charging in with drones a'blazin' because of one simple fact - we don't have the wealth to be the world's police any more. Our economy is in shambles, our military gutted and hogtied by bleeding heart rules of engagment, and our national will eaten away by a decade of frothing anti-war rhetoric of dubious veracity. Yes, Chemical weapons are bad. But the fact is if we involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war, we're definitely going to cause collateral damage and civilian casualties, and we're either supporting Al Qaeda on the one side, or supporting Assad on the other. Which do you want to help? Because those are the only two dogs in the fight.

Yes, it's unfortunate that our president decided to paint himself into a corner with tough guy rhetoric. Obama's foreign policy zigzags between schizophrenic and incompetent. But the ego of one man is not the credibility of the United States, and it is long, long past time we remind Washington to whom they are beholden.

Sep 4, 2013#125

strawman

Necronic said:
http://www.brewracingframes.com/id75.htm

Ooof, that is frightening.

Sep 4, 2013#126

Necronic

All I care about is chemical weapons really. It would be good to step up to the plate on genocides where possible, bu chemical weapons are a real red line for me.

And it wasn't Obama that painted himself into a corner on this. It was damn near the entire world. We all agreed on this. Just because no one else means what they say doesn't mean shit to me. When America says no, we mean no.

This matters. Chemical weapons can not be used under any circumstances. Anyone using them is going to get a swift kick in the balls.

This isn't about who is right or wrong in that conflict. Intervention does not change who wins or loses, or it won't make a huge difference. This is about chemical weapons. Period. End of story.

Quit trying to escalate this into a world war. It won't. Russia is posturing and it's damned well time we show Putin just what we really think of his shirtless bear hunting foreign policy.

Quit trying to say that attacking chemical weapons delivery systems will help Al-Qaeda. This whole fucking Arab Spring is helping Al-Qaeda. You want to know what would hurt Al-Qaeda? Supporting secular dictators like Assad or Hussein.

And quit acting like following your word makes you an aggressive "frothing" vengeful monster. This is about as cold and calculating as it gets. There are rules and there are consequences.

Ed: And quit saying we cant fix everything so we shouldn't try to fix anything. We pick our fights. We fight the ones that matter the most. Just because the entire world is burnin doesn't mean we just stop, roll up into a ball and let the flames consume us. What do we look like? Europeans?

Sep 4, 2013#127

Charlie Don't Surf

less than 1m ago
The resolution that just passed the Senate foreign relations committee included the McCain amendments. That means the full Senate will now consider legislation that makes it "the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria."
5m ago
Dan Roberts:

Senate committee votes in favour of authorising military action against Syria by 10 votes to 7 with 1 abstention. Full floor vote next.

from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/04/syria-crisis-putin-warns-west-live

Let's fuckin' do it, let's go to war and kill a bunch of people with raining death

Sep 4, 2013#128

Necronic

Whelp. My whole argument is moot now. Fml. gg.

I'm not ok with the McCain amendment as it fulfills like 90% of the concerns y'all had.

Sep 4, 2013#129

strawman

That's just the committee. Still has to go to a full senate and house votes, if I'm not mistaken. Getting the bill out of the committee and to the floor isn't the hard part.

The bill can still change on the way through the rest of the process.

Sep 4, 2013#130

GasBandit

Necronic said:
All I care about is chemical weapons really. It would be good to step up to the plate on genocides where possible, bu chemical weapons are a real red line for me.

Well, I'm glad we're apparently tailoring foreign policy to address your personal demons.

And it wasn't Obama that painted himself into a corner on this. It was damn near the entire world. We all agreed on this. Just because no one else means what they say doesn't mean shit to me. When America says no, we mean no.

I'm sorry, WHAT country have you been living in all your life? Politicians (yes, even ours) have been selectively enforcing laws and treaties for longer than you and I have been alive. We even have historical precedent of ignoring chemical weapons manufacture and use.

This isn't about who is right or wrong in that conflict. Intervention does not change who wins or loses, or it won't make a huge difference. This is about chemical weapons. Period. End of story.

No. You have to take into account all the consequences of your actions, or at the least, the ones you can predict. And it's simple to see that attacking Assad helps Al Qaeda. Furthermore, it is still questionable that Assad's forces were the ones who used them in the first place. All the press I've read for the last couple months had him on a new offensive that was really pushing the rebels against the ropes. He had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons that he wasn't already doing conventionally. Conversely, the jihadists, ever more desperate, definitely have something to gain by bringing in the US on their side.

Quit trying to escalate this into a world war. It won't.

I never said world war, I said proxy war.

Russia is posturing and it's damned well time we show Putin just what we really think of his shirtless bear hunting foreign policy.

If you don't think Russia will give material aid to places like Syria and Iran, you're fooling yourself.

Quit trying to say that attacking chemical weapons delivery systems will help Al-Qaeda.

You seem to be under the impression we have some kind of miracle magic wand we can wave to remove chemical weapons from the equation without dramatic loss of innocent life and risking regional contamination.

This whole fucking Arab Spring is helping Al-Qaeda. You want to know what would hurt Al-Qaeda? Supporting secular dictators like Assad or Hussein.

... which is why we're not leaping right into the fray. Seriously, where are you going with this line of reasoning?

And quit acting like following your word makes you an aggressive "frothing" vengeful monster. This is about as cold and calculating as it gets. There are rules and there are consequences.

I'm sorry, was YOUR personal word at stake here? Because the vengeful frothing I was referring to was yours, specifically. You are not cold and calculating, you are irrational and borderline obsessive. You don't care about anything but that chemical weapons were used, and you forcefully, aggressively, and sometimes profanely posture your responses to try and fallaciously shove your points through to primacy. You're trying to bludgeon this discussion to death with emotional appeals and overly forceful rhetoric.

Sep 4, 2013#131

Necronic

Yeah, I guess I am getting emotional. I don't know why. Something about chemical weapons just sets off a trigger for me. And...I dunno. I'm just not ok with isolationism. Something about it really really pisses me off. It's what Europe did. They got rich off the world and then walked away.

I'm not ok with that. I never want us to do that. I know we've made mistakes. We've made so many. But the biggest mistake is walking away. And it seems to be the new thing in America. I guess it's a natural reaction to any long period of war like what we've been in.

But yeah. I guess I was frothing a bit. Seeing the McCain ammendment really took the wind out of my sails.

Sep 4, 2013#132

GasBandit

There are worse triggers to have, I suppose.

And I'm really, really tired of McCain turning everything he touches to shit.

Sep 4, 2013#133

Shakey

Necronic said:
I'm not ok with that. I never want us to do that. I know we've made mistakes. We've made so many. But the biggest mistake is walking away. And it seems to be the new thing in America. I guess it's a natural reaction to any long period of war like what we've been in.

That's what we would be doing though. We'd launch some missiles, call it good, and walk away. We would most likely weaken Assad enough that the rebels could turn the tide, and maybe even over take him. Now we've got a country with no firm leadership that has chemical weapons. Even if we tried to target their stock piles, There will most likely be stockpiles we don't know about. That, I think, is a much worse situation. Who knows where those weapons will end up.

Sep 4, 2013#134

drawn_inward

Necronic said:
Yeah, I guess I am getting emotional. I don't know why. Something about chemical weapons just sets off a trigger for me.

I don't agree with you, but I understand having a "trigger" topic. I think we all agree with you on the matter of chemical weapons being horrible and monstrous.

Sep 4, 2013#135

Eriol

Necronic, you need to understand the difference between countries signing treaties because it would look bad if they don't, and signing things because they actually want to do what they said in them. There are SCORES of examples both ways. If you want something besides weapons in the first category, just look to the Kyoto treaty. (Hey, if other people can Godwin the thread, why can't I throw in that?

)

Sep 4, 2013#136

Necronic

Well let's be fair here. It's not like one of 'those' kinds of triggers (not sure how else to say that).

I'm just really pissed about this. I stand by what I said, of not how I said it.

Also nicotine gum makes me fucking furious.

Ed: uhm. Kyoto may not be the best example.

Sep 4, 2013#137

jwhouk

Oh Gee, Proxy Wars. Didn't we do that already in 'Nam and Korea?

Sep 4, 2013#138

Eriol

Necronic said:
Ed: uhm. Kyoto may not be the best example.

True. Most who signed it either A) Weren't bound by any targets to begin with, or B) Were below them already due to economic collapse (Eastern Europe). So not exactly what I meant, but you get the idea.[DOUBLEPOST=1378330044,1378329971][/DOUBLEPOST]

jwhouk said:
Oh Gee, Proxy Wars. Didn't we do that already in 'Nam and Korea?

The first Korean war the entire UN was there because Russia abstained from the security council vote (they have never missed one since) and China's seat was represented by an actual democracy (Taiwan) instead of the communists. So that war had full UN "approval" and had boots on the ground from many countries, yours and mine included.

Sep 4, 2013#139

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Also nicotine gum makes me fucking furious.

Well, it SAYS right on the box, man.

Sep 4, 2013#140

Gilgamesh

All I can say on this whole thing is this:

Backing Assad = Wrong
Backing Rebels = Wrong
Doing Nothing = Wrong

However, saying that replacing Assad is the wrong answer BECAUSE whoever takes his place may do the same thing is a moot point. Assad already crossed the ultimate line (aside from Nuclear weapons) so there isn't any worse that can come. It can only be AS bad or better.

Sep 4, 2013#141

Necronic

God damn Gasbandit how did you find that.

Eriol said:
True. Most who signed it either A) Weren't bound by any targets to begin with, or B) Were below them already due to economic collapse (Eastern Europe). So not exactly what I meant, but you get the idea.

I just meant that US refused to ratify it because they knew they couldn't follow it.

Sep 4, 2013#142

GasBandit

Necronic said:
God damn Gasbandit how did you find that.

I shooped it myself real quick.

Sep 4, 2013#143

TommiR

sixpackshaker said:
Syria is a major financier for jihadist. There is just a new group of jihadist in town, that does not owe them allegiance.

Syria has a history of sponsoring Palestinian and Lebanese insurgents, and some other local flavor. This may be a degree different from a state where the extremists are in power. The reasons for the support have been mostly geopolitical; the Baathist government of Syria has come down hard on islamism in the past, and are hostile towards Al Qaeda.

Morphine said:
We should do a bit more researchabout what the US military has done in other countries when "helping". More innocent children will die because of this, it has happened before because that's not really what matters the most to the US government. As @Shakey said: "We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different." The "US world police" is a very corrupt one.

I would assume the vast majority of people who become casualties of war did not deserve to die or get hurt. But I guess it's all about working towards an omelette that, in the end, was worth breaking the eggs for.

Bubble181 said:
In other news, many left and European sources were saying that this might be an attack launched by the rebels to draw in the US (as has been stated in this thread). Now Rasmussen (secretary-general of NATO) has come out and said he's seen definite and absolute proof it was the regime.

At this point, most of the indicators do point towards government forces beingresponsible for the chemical weapons attack. Though it is possible the regime itself did not order it; things can get a bit confused in a civil war. While Hafez had an iron grip on the military, Bashar has never been able to establish anywhere near the same kind of hold as the old man. Assad does not seem to have much to gain from a chemical weapons attack, but a rival clique within the military who'd like to see Assad go certainly might. Could have been a rogue op.

Dave said:
The rebels are WAY worse than Assad.

Pretty much. It didn't start out that way, the rebellion was quite secular in the beginning. But then the extremists started getting outside funding and weapons, while the moderates received cautious encouragement. As a result, the extremists have been in the lead for a good while now, and the moderate elements have been marginalized to insignificance.

stienman said:
1) Easier said than done (we don't have enough good intelligence to do this well, nevermind completely)
2) Problematic as physical destruction of such facilities may result in huge plumes of toxins floating around for some time after the destruction.

Yeah, pretty much.

Sep 4, 2013#144

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
Doing Nothing = Wrong
.

this is the option that doesn't directly kill more people and create more terrorists, so I'm going to go ahead and say this is right

Sep 4, 2013#145

Krisken

Maybe we really DO need space aliens to unite us and prevent us from killing each other.

Sep 4, 2013#146

TommiR

Krisken said:
Maybe we really DO need space aliens to unite us and prevent us from killing each other.

But apparently the aliens would need to use something more substantial than chemical weapons.

Sep 4, 2013#147

strawman

TommiR said:
At this point, most of the indicators do point towards government forces beingresponsible for the chemical weapons attack.

Even if they didn't order the attack from the top, the weapons were most likely created and stockpiled by them. Merely by making and storing them for future use you are culpable when they are used, by your order or not.

Sep 4, 2013#148

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Maybe we really DO need space aliens to unite us and prevent us from killing each other.

Isn't that why we have F-22s in the first place? You don't make anti-Decepticon planes if you're not going to fucking fight the Decepticons.

Sep 4, 2013#149

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
this is the option that doesn't directly kill more people and create more terrorists, so I'm going to go ahead and say this is right

Which emphasis the point even further over how it's wrong. Thanks for the assurance.

Sep 4, 2013#150

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
Isn't that why we have F-22s in the first place? You don't make anti-Decepticon planes if you're not going to fucking fight the Decepticons.

Heh, and here I was going for The Watchmen.

Sep 5, 2013#151

TommiR

stienman said:
Even if they didn't order the attack from the top, the weapons were most likely created and stockpiled by them. Merely by making and storing them for future use you are culpable when they are used, by your order or not.

In a legal sense, wouldn't it be treated as a war crime? I imagine it becomes a question of command responsibility, and not necessarily one of manufacturing and storage.

Sep 5, 2013#152

bhamv3

Ok, having read through this entire thread, I have now come to the conclusion that nuking the site from orbit is the only option we have remaining.

Sep 5, 2013#153

strawman

bhamv3 said:
Ok, having read through this entire thread, I have now come to the conclusion that nuking the site from orbit is the only option we have remaining.

That would certainly prevent either side from killing any more civilians.

Sep 5, 2013#154

jwhouk

It would also put a huge damper on world oil prices, because irradiated fuel reserves are no good to anyone.

Sep 5, 2013#155

sixpackshaker

jwhouk said:
It would also put a huge damper on world oil prices, because irradiated fuel reserves are no good to anyone.

Syria does not have [edit:MUCH] oil. I thought they were out of the producing areas.

Sep 5, 2013#156

strawman

Their greatest asset is their access to the Mediterranean and location in the middle east.

Sep 5, 2013#157

sixpackshaker

Right just think of all the money the Middle East would make if you built a super highway, rail route that would connect India and China to Turkey.

Sep 5, 2013#158

Espy

Maybe Clinton can tell Obama how to bomb places that have "chemical weapons" and are totally not medical factories that are desperately needed in their area. And it helps if the bombing is meant to distract away from someone giving you a hummer.

Sep 5, 2013#159

sixpackshaker

Espy said:
Maybe Clinton can tell Obama how to bomb places that have "chemical weapons" and are totally not medical factories that are desperately needed in their area. And it helps if the bombing is meant to distract away from someone giving you a hummer.

...and Bin Laden was a swell fella too.

Sep 5, 2013#160

strawman

Espy said:
...someone giving you a hummer.

Clinton was all about free military hardware.

Sep 5, 2013#161

Espy

stienman said:
Clinton was all about free military hardware.

I always thought he was more about really focused insertions.

Sep 5, 2013#162

Bubble181

TommiR said:
In a legal sense, wouldn't it be treated as a war crime? I imagine it becomes a question of command responsibility, and not necessarily one of manufacturing and storage.

Careful there. That would mean the US, being the world's biggest stockpiler of nuclear, chemical AND biological weapons would be in the wrong too. So, no, clearly and obviously, having ABC weapons isn't necessarily wrong, as long as you're keeping them "safe" and "just in case" or something

Sep 5, 2013#163

Chad Sexington

Not really contributing to the thread, but this made me chuckle: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/375307260022763520

Sep 5, 2013#164

sixpackshaker

Bubble181 said:
Careful there. That would mean the US, being the world's biggest stockpiler of nuclear, chemical AND biological weapons would be in the wrong too. So, no, clearly and obviously, having ABC weapons isn't necessarily wrong, as long as you're keeping them "safe" and "just in case" or something

Patently false. Russia has more Nukes, and we have burned up our chemical stockpiles. We never had weaponized biological weapons. We do keep and study the most popular biological agents so we will know how to treat the victims of such an attack.

Sep 5, 2013#165

Bubble181

sixpackshaker said:
We do keep and study the most popular biological agents.

Which would be enough to be punished according to what TommiR said.

Sep 5, 2013#166

TommiR

Bubble181 said:
Which would be enough to be punished according to what TommiR said.

Actually, I said (or at least meant) the exact opposite. Manufacture and storage of chemical weapons is not enough IMHO to incur culpability for their use. The use of chemical weapons would likely constitute a war crime, and if the leaders were held responsibile, it would likely be happen according to the principle of command responsibility.

Edited to add:

Sep 5, 2013#167

SpecialKO

Isn't there growing international pressure to explicitly add napalm, depleted uranium, and white phosphorous use of any kind (we've always maintained that WP as an incendiary weapon is a warcrime, but using it to mark targets is okay) to the CWC?

Sep 5, 2013#168

Necronic

Espy said:
Maybe Clinton can tell Obama how to bomb places that have "chemical weapons" and are totally not medical factories that are desperately needed in their area. And it helps if the bombing is meant to distract away from someone giving you a hummer.

I'm not really sure how many people knew about this. I don't think it was the same level of news that the Syria thing is.

I remember a (relatively) recent interview on Democracy Now with the General in command of that strike. He had an interesting response. His take was that, based on the intel they had at the time, it was the right call. You don't get to go back in time. He was pretty clearly unrepentant. Amy Goodwin couldn't really accept that. Interview went in circles for like 30 minutes.

Sep 5, 2013#169

CrimsonSoul

Soo... Are we about to go to war with Russia or something?

Sep 5, 2013#170

strawman

Not directly, no. But if we support one side of the syrian conflict, and they support the other side, then indirectly, yes.

Sep 5, 2013#171

GasBandit

CrimsonSoul said:
Soo... Are we about to go to war with Russia or something?

No, I think it would be more accurate to say Russia is about to send more guns, bombs and tanks to the regime we're about to bomb, if we bomb them. Which might mean more bombing, which might mean more Russian arms. And they might throw in Iran as a two-fer on the arms.

Sep 5, 2013#172

Krisken

I agree with The Onion-

Send Congress to Syria.

Sep 5, 2013#173

Espy

Necronic said:
I'm not really sure how many people knew about this. I don't think it was the same level of news that the Syria thing is.

I remember a (relatively) recent interview on Democracy Now with the General in command of that strike. He had an interesting response. His take was that, based on the intel they had at the time, it was the right call. You don't get to go back in time. He was pretty clearly unrepentant. Amy Goodwin couldn't really accept that. Interview went in circles for like 30 minutes.

Hitchens would beg to differ with that general. I don't have the book on hand where he talks about it but here's a review of that portion:

Hitchens discusses the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company bombing affair. On 20 August 1998, Clinton ordered the destruction of the gigantic pharmaceutical factory in Sudan; that factory produces 60% of the medicines for the country. ‘Many more have died, and will die, because an impoverished country has lost its chief source of medicines and pesticides’ (91). The Clinton administration – obviously not wanting to take responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of people who needed those medicines – made the claim that that factory was actually a weapons production facility for Osama bin Laden and his corporate Saudi clique (89). Hitchens, in expert detail, exposes that assertion to be a complete lie, showing that there had never been any evidence of bin Laden money or chemical weapons production at the factory… and, in fact, it would have impossible for any to ever have been there.

Sep 5, 2013#174

jwhouk

Bottom line: we have no idea who to support here; we've got a better than 50% chance of backing the wrong side; and we could also end up getting into a proxy war with the Russians.

I'm sorry, but Pass.

Sep 5, 2013#175

Krisken

Yeah, both sides kinda suck.

Sep 10, 2013#176

strawman

Well, looks like a "solution" has been found, and by "solution" I mean "A way for Obama to avoid pissing US citizens off without going back on his 'red line' speech".

Kerry suggested offhand that perhaps if Syria turned over all their chemical weapons to UN control, military force might be unnecessary. The Russians picked up on that, ran with it, and got Assad to tentatively agree to it. France is insisting that the UN only accept custody of the weapons on condition of planned destruction of the chemical WMDs by the UN.

Obama's new foreign policy: let Kerry ramble on for a few hours and see what comes up.

I don't know if Obama can recover this issue given how bad he fumbled it. I suppose we'll see tonight if his speech is interesting, polls have him at the lowest foreign policy approval rating of his presidency, and I'm sure new polls will be done after his speech.

If he interrupts America's Got Talent finals, though, I'm voting for impeachment...
:popcorn:

Sep 10, 2013#177

SpecialKO

The Kremlin is saying that Obama and Putin worked the idea out during a one-on-one sidebar at the G-20.

Sep 10, 2013#178

GasBandit

What I want to know is where Janine Garofolo, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn have been all this time, so very quiet. Every Hollywood Iraq protester just lost every last shred of credibility.

Sep 10, 2013#179

SpecialKO

Hollywood folk have credibility?

Sep 10, 2013#180

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Hollywood folk have credibility?

They thought they did, but now I don't see how even they can look themselves in the mirror.

Sep 10, 2013#181

sixpackshaker

How is this anything like the lead up to the Iraq War?

Sep 10, 2013#182

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
How is this anything like the lead up to the Iraq War?

Yeah, I guess you're right... at least Bush went to the UN, built a coalition of 40 nations, and got congressional approval first. That's all completely different.

And I guess it is different how last time the intel was supposed to be phoney and no intelligence gathering service was given any credence, and this time it's sancrosanct, even if unseen.

And of course, this time we're talking about air strikes only, not "boots on the ground." So it's not at all like Iraq. More like Pearl Harbor, another limited air strike with no boots on the ground. Clearly not an open act of war, right?

Sep 10, 2013#183

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
More like Pearl Harbor, another limited air strike with no boots on the ground. Clearly not an open act of war, right?

Tell that to the veterans of Bataan.

Sep 10, 2013#184

bhamv3

sixpackshaker said:
Tell that to the veterans of Bataan.

I totally misread that as Batman and got confused.

Sep 10, 2013#185

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
The Kremlin is saying that Obama and Putin worked the idea out during a one-on-one sidebar at the G-20.

Is that the same meeting where Obama called Putin a 'jackass'?

Sep 11, 2013#186

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Yeah, I guess you're right... at least Bush went to the UN, built a coalition of 40 nations, and got congressional approval first. That's all completely different.

And I guess it is different how last time the intel was supposed to be phoney and no intelligence gathering service was given any credence, and this time it's sancrosanct, even if unseen.

And of course, this time we're talking about air strikes only, not "boots on the ground." So it's not at all like Iraq. More like Pearl Harbor, another limited air strike with no boots on the ground. Clearly not an open act of war, right?

Very true. Some people are still protesting (I was against going to Afghanistan, Iraq AND Syria, despite being also against US isolationism - go figure!), but those staying oh so very quite this time, just like those now suddenly opposing the war while backing the former, do show their colors as being "I care about this issue because of national politics, not because of people or justice".

I was also against Obama getting the Peace Price for "being a high-office black guy and not being Bush" - and I'm sad to say I think I've been proven right. Heck, Clinton's Peace Price was at least understandable because besides going to war, he stopped some as well. Obama? Myeah. "Not as bad as Bush", perhaps, but certainly not what I'd say deserves a NPP.

Sep 11, 2013#187

Terrik

Actually, I'm curious, at this point, how is Obama still better than Bush?

Sep 11, 2013#188

bhamv3

Terrik said:
Actually, I'm curious, at this point, how is Obama still better than Bush?

Fewer outright attempts to break down the separation of church and state.

(Probably because he knows his Muslim policies would never be accepted! :troll:

)

Sep 11, 2013#189

Bubble181

Terrik said:
Actually, I'm curious, at this point, how is Obama still better than Bush?

Cuter smile, he's black, and err, well, Libya isn't as much of a clusterfuck as Iraq, I guess?

Sep 11, 2013#190

Terrik

I think Obama had the opportunity to be better than Bush and he blew it.

Sep 11, 2013#191

AshburnerX

Terrik said:
Actually, I'm curious, at this point, how is Obama still better than Bush?

He didn't steal a presidential election through fraud and media control for one.

Sep 11, 2013#192

sixpackshaker

He hasn't gotten us into any forever wars.

Sep 11, 2013#193

strawman

Sep 11, 2013#194

SpecialKO

Issuing guidance to federal prosecutors to restrict the circumstances under which pot users can be charged is a good first step. As is telling Holder to not challenge marijuana legality laws.

The sooner the War on Drugs grinds to a halt (or at least stops freaking out about pot) the better.

Sep 11, 2013#195

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
He didn't steal a presidential election through fraud and media control for one.

Please. His entire career revolves around fraud and media control.

Sep 11, 2013#196

GasBandit

Aaaaand it turns out that a "researcher" whose opinions were cited by McCain and Kerry has been faking having a PHD, and has ties to the rebels.

Great picture of her, too, website, with the eyes closed and whatnot. Oy.

Sep 11, 2013#197

Tress

It just keeps getting better and better.

Sep 11, 2013#198

Terrik

Just as an aside, while I'm totally drunk off my ass, I happened to bring the Obama/Bush issue up to a few Chinese people I was drinking with this evening. One was a hardcore nationalist, one was completely against the Party, and both said Obama was terrible and Bush was much better. Their reasons being that Bush understood Chinese culture better while Obama seemed to be picking a fight. Both agreed that Obama being elected was a monumental occasion but Obamas policies in regards to Asia/China left a lot to be desired. i don't know if thats a compliment or a condemnation.

Sep 11, 2013#199

GasBandit

Terrik said:
Just as an aside, while I'm totally drunk off my ass, I happened to bring the Obama/Bush issue up to a few Chinese people I was drinking with this evening. One was a hardcore nationalist, one was completely against the Party, and both said Obama was terrible and Bush was much better. Their reasons being that Bush understood Chinese culture better while Obama seemed to be picking a fight. Both agreed that Obama being elected was a monumental occasion but Obamas policies in regards to Asia/China left a lot to be desired. i don't know if thats a compliment or a condemnation.

Well, he did campaign as a great uniter... and many stripes of former adversaries are uniting... in opposition to him.

Sep 11, 2013#200

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Well, he did campaign as a great uniter... and many stripes of former adversaries are uniting... in opposition to him.

Say what you will about LeLouche Vi Britannia's wholesale slaughter of entire empires, he understood that it's far easier to unite the world in hatred and fear than it is to do the same with peace and love. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself what kind of legacy you REALLY want to leave: one that makes people remember you fondly or one that actually endures.

Sep 11, 2013#201

Tress

From over here I get the distinct impression China is the one picking the fight, and almost any president would have similar policies.

Sep 11, 2013#202

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Say what you will about LeLouche Vi Britannia's wholesale slaughter of entire empires, he understood that it's far easier to unite the world in hatred and fear than it is to do the same with peace and love. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself what kind of legacy you REALLY want to leave: one that makes people remember you fondly or one that actually endures.

Ok, but if we're going to be citing Code Geass as political parable, bear in mind Lelouche's entire goal was to bring down his native country because he disagreed with its political ideology after being raised primarily in a foreign nation and culture with historical animosity toward his own.

/SUBtlety with a nuclear SUB

Sep 11, 2013#203

Terrik

Tress said:
From over here I get the distinct impression China is the one picking the fight, and almost any president would have similar policies.

Could be, I'm just saying that was their impression. This isn't the first time I've heard in China that Bush greatly strengthened the US-China relationship. Also, I don't remember writing that last night.

Sep 12, 2013#204

Espy

I am enjoying watching my conservative friends on FB praising Putin as such a clear headed and strong leader. Plus he's got the right idea about the gays apparently.

I mean, look, Obama dropped the ball pretty badly on this one but really? Putin is the guy you are going to suddenly rally behind? Yikes.

Sep 12, 2013#205

AshburnerX

And that's the state of American politics... the "real Americans" are actively supporting an old school fascist/communist leader because he's white, hates the gays, and isn't their current president.

Sep 12, 2013#206

Espy

AshburnerX said:
And that's the state of American politics... the "real Americans" are actively supporting an old school fascist/communist leader because he's white, hates the gays, and isn't their current president.

As much as I wish it wasn't true thats pretty much what it looks like.

Sep 12, 2013#207

strawman

I have a number of conservative friends on FB and haven't seen any putin love.

Sep 12, 2013#208

Krisken

I generally stop following people who post politics on Facebook. Ironic, eh?

Sep 12, 2013#209

sixpackshaker

This situation would be like South Korea going rouge and China threatening to bomb... the only nation with the clout to settle things would be the USA.

Sep 12, 2013#210

Krisken

So they aren't as red as they used to be?

Sep 12, 2013#211

Espy

stienman said:
I have a number of conservative friends on FB and haven't seen any putin love.

A few of them are pretty... crazy evangelical "Obama is the anti-christ" people. They are convinced that if he isn't the Anti-Christ he's at least a Muslim and he's gay. A few of them are pretty normal conservatives though and that definitely worries me, Putin doesn't seem like the kind of guy we want to be classifying as a hero at all. That being said, I'm not trying to say that all conservatives think this way, I'm just disturbed by some I've seen.

Sep 12, 2013#212

SpecialKO

Espy said:
A few of them are pretty... crazy evangelical "Obama is the anti-christ" people. They are convinced that if he isn't the Anti-Christ he's at least a Muslim and he's gay. A few of them are pretty normal conservatives though and that definitely worries me, Putin doesn't seem like the kind of guy we want to be classifying as a hero at all. That being said, I'm not trying to say that all conservatives think this way, I'm just disturbed by some I've seen.

There is a definite strain of American politics that will deify just about anyone perceived to be "standing up" to the other guy, no matter who it is, similar to the way a lot of the fringe left venerated Hugo Chavez. The difference this time is that a lot of the people praising Putin aren't that fringe (Fox News personalities).

Sep 12, 2013#213

GasBandit

Oy, you guys should see the e-mails my Uncle Herb keeps sending the whole family about Obama. I feel like such a pinko having to shoot him down constantly, but his gobbledygook is exactly the kind of stuff that weakens conservative arguments.

In other news, in a move that's SURE to calm everybody down, the Russians have sent an anti-carrier missile cruiser into the Mediterranean as part of the largest Russian naval deployment since the fall of the USSR. Being interestingly candid, however, the Duma's defence committee chairman has said that the Russian navy is 30 years outdated and can't possibly hope to compete with the US Navy.

Sep 12, 2013#214

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
In other news, in a move that's SURE to calm everybody down, the Russians have sent an anti-carrier missile cruiser into the Mediterranean as part of the largest Russian naval deployment since the fall of the USSR. Being interestingly candid, however, the Duma's defence committee chairman has said that the Russian navy is 30 years outdated and can't possibly hope to compete with the US Navy.

Maybe it's to keep the Turks in line?

Sep 12, 2013#215

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Maybe it's to keep the Turks in line?

The article does make that conjecture, as well as that of it being perhaps part of an effort to evacuate Russian citizens if things go completely pear-shaped.

Sep 12, 2013#216

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
The article does make that conjecture, as well as that of it being perhaps part of an effort to evacuate Russian citizens if things go completely pear-shaped.

I think that the Russians know that the US is always going to be willing to deal and not be crazy, but are wary of the Turks and/or Saudis since they have direct regional interest.

If there's even a hint that the Kurdish elements in Syria are gaining a regional upperhand in anyway, Turkey is going to do something. And the relationship between the Saudis and the Russians is not too dissimilar from ours with Iran.

Sep 12, 2013#217

Gilgamesh

I like how Syria is claiming that it was Russia's offer to take the Chemical Weapons and not the US involvement that made their decision.

Considering Russia gave them the chemical weapons, probably told them that they'd hold on to them for them until this blew over and most likely would have never even reached a National level of interest if not for the US, I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

Sep 12, 2013#218

drawn_inward

Espy said:
I am enjoying watching my conservative friends on FB praising Putin as such a clear headed and strong leader. Plus he's got the right idea about the gays apparently.

I mean, look, Obama dropped the ball pretty badly on this one but really? Putin is the guy you are going to suddenly rally behind? Yikes.

I have been taken aback by similar sentiments as well. I just assume everyone is being sarcastic or ironic and then I don't have to cut myself or drink myself to sleep.

Sep 12, 2013#219

strawman

drawn_inward said:
I just assume everyone is being sarcastic or ironic

♫ A dream is a wish your heart makes... ♫

Sep 13, 2013#220

GasBandit

There was an excellent piece in the CFP monday called "Shooting the Syrian Elephant."

Sep 16, 2013#221

GasBandit

With action stalling in the legislature, it's time to take it directly to the public, and crowdfunding!

Kickstart WW3!

Sep 16, 2013#222

strawman

I want a Hybrid Prius Tank!

Sep 16, 2013#223

Gilgamesh

Man, the talking GOP heads are basically worshipping the ground Putin walks on in the last two weeks.

Which is hilarious because during Obama's first term, when it seemed that Putin and him were together, they were screaming about all of Putin's atrocities and how he's the devil incarnate.

Oh GOP talking heads, will you never stop being hilarious?

Sep 16, 2013#224

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Man, the talking GOP heads are basically worshipping the ground Putin walks on in the last two weeks.

Which is hilarious because during Obama's first term, when it seemed that Putin and him were together, they were screaming about all of Putin's atrocities and how he's the devil incarnate.

Oh GOP talking heads, will you never stop being hilarious?

You're always going on about these "GOP talking heads" saying things I've not heard of Rush, Beck or Hannity talking about. Which "GOP talking heads" are you referring to, specifically?

Sep 16, 2013#225

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
You're always going on about these "GOP talking heads" saying things I've not heard of Rush, Beck or Hannity talking about. Which "GOP talking heads" are you referring to, specifically?

Rush, Beck, Ingrahm, Savage are usually the ones I'm talking about.

Sep 16, 2013#226

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Rush, Beck, Ingrahm, Savage are usually the ones I'm talking about.

Well, the brief times I've come across the first two in our radio market here, they've had no kind words for Putin, unless in some strange perspective lamenting what a monkey he's made of our executive branch is "worship."

I googled around to see if I could find other examples of what you were talking about, but overwhelmingly it was all either "token republican allowed on MSNBC because he's a turncoat" stuff, or misinterpretation of something Charles Krauthammer said. Oh, and Newt Gingrich marvelling over a Russian quoting the pope.

In related news - seems Time Magazine is at it again:

A different cover in the US from the covers in the rest of the world, which read "America weak and waffling, Russia rich and resurgent." The latest in a number of times they've changed the US version's cover when their main story was something that cast Obama in a less than positive light.

Sep 16, 2013#227

Krisken

What do you have against music?

I couldn't find anything for Ingraham

Sep 17, 2013#228

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
A different cover in the US from the covers in the rest of the world, which read "America weak and waffling, Russia rich and resurgent." The latest in a number of times they've changed the US version's cover when their main story was something that cast Obama in a less than positive light.

Um, they've been doing that for a while now whether it has anything to do with Obama or not.

Sep 19, 2013#229

SpecialKO

Crap.

Remember how we were talking about Turkey potentially getting directly involved as more than supplier of arms to their faction of choice? That may start being more than "potentially".

Sep 19, 2013#230

Dave

Even worse? It's now murkier than ever, with rebel groups starting to fight each other.

Tell me again why we want to get involved with this colossal clusterfuck?

Sep 19, 2013#231

GasBandit

Dave said:
Even worse? It's now murkier than ever, with rebel groups starting to fight each other.

Tell me again why we want to get involved with this colossal clusterfuck?

Because for the love of god stop thinking about the NSA and Benghazi and Obamacare and the IRS and I SAID STOP THINKING ABOUT THEM look, Syria! OOooooh boogie boogie boogie boogiemen!

Sep 19, 2013#232

Dave

GasBandit said:
Because for the love of god stop thinking about the NSA and Benghazi and Obamacare and the IRS and I SAID STOP THINKING ABOUT THEM look, Syria! OOooooh boogie boogie boogie boogiemen!

I am with you on everything but Benghazi or Obamacare. I would say more Snowden/NSA/IRS than anything.

Sep 19, 2013#233

Covar

Because if we don't everyone will hate us and we'll hurt our national interests. Of course if we do everyone will hate us and we'll hurt our national interests...

Pay no attention the the gross violations of the fourth amendment!

Sep 19, 2013#234

Espy

I'm still confused about the Bengazi thing. I see lots of folks posting stuff over on FB about Obama covering something up, but what exactly was covered up? It just sounds like it was kind of a clusterfuck all around.

Sep 19, 2013#235

strawman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

The main issue appears to be that the administration had information and evidence they did not disclose to congress before it was reported in the newspapers and the slow response.

Those are symptoms of an administration trying to come up with a PR strategy in order to avoid being blamed, or having to blame someone they posted.

Because they kept trying over and over again to get a handle on things, and held back information repeatedly until it was forced from their tight fist, many are wondering what else they know that they were successful in hiding.

While hindsight is 20/20, many believe that there was enough information to make a better decision prior to the event, implying that the decision wasn't mere ignorance, but active neglect, and not at lower levels but at Clinton's and possibly Obama's level.

Sep 19, 2013#236

GasBandit

Dave said:
I am with you on everything but Benghazi or Obamacare. I would say more Snowden/NSA/IRS than anything.

Not just concern about those things, but it's meant to take over all the "talk time" so that nobody can pay attention, or even take the time to discuss them. And believe you me, there's still lots of people who are cranky about Benghazi and Obamacare. Despite all the distraction, there's still a house investigation of the former going on, and an effort to defund the latter. But if the Obama administration can spam the media with 24/7 Syria handwringing, maybe it'll fall out of the public's attention, and just go away. They hope.

Sep 19, 2013#237

Krisken

White House holds back top secret information, world outraged. News at 10:00.

Could be a headline from ANYTIME, eh?

Sep 19, 2013#238

Dei

Obamacare isn't an issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/polit...ign=Feed:+rss/cnn_allpolitics+(RSS:+Politics)

Sep 19, 2013#239

GasBandit

It's not just that they held it back, but they actively lied and manufactured the whole "outrage over a youtube video" thing out of whole cloth to try to further a cultural agenda while simultaneously trying to cover up their incompetence and exactly what else they were trying to do there that went so horribly pear shaped. My money's still on them trying to broker arms under the table.

Sep 19, 2013#240

Krisken

Yeah, they've only voted to defund it more than 30 times. Of course, the Senate just rolls their eyes at them.

Sep 19, 2013#241

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yeah, they've only voted to defund it more than 30 times. Of course, the Senate just rolls their eyes at them.

No, this is the first defund vote. The previous... 42 I think? Were straightforward repeals.

Sep 19, 2013#242

Dei

My point was really more that Obamacare is still a issue to a lot of people, even if not everyone.

Sep 19, 2013#243

Krisken

Dei said:
My point was really more that Obamacare is still a issue to a lot of people, even if not everyone.

I would best, safely I may add, that if Obamacare was defunded and struck down people would throw a fit at the stuff they were no longer guaranteed.

Sep 19, 2013#244

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I would best, safely I may add, that if Obamacare was defunded and struck down people would throw a fit at the stuff they were no longer guaranteed.

Well, the 12% or so who polls show think they'll actually benefit from it probably would. They are, however, outnumbered by a fair amount.

Sep 19, 2013#245

Gilgamesh

Honestly it's so far changed from what Obama originally wanted, thanks to all the bullshit put forth from the GoP, I don't even think it should be called Obamacare anymore.

Sep 19, 2013#246

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Honestly it's so far changed from what Obama originally wanted, thanks to all the bullshit put forth from the GoP, I don't even think it should be called Obamacare anymore.

And yet he, Pelosi and Reid are hell bent on seeing it come to full fledged awful "GOP bullshitized" fruition. Frankly, the last couple weeks have been kinda making me regret I didn't vote for Ted Cruz. He's turned out to be not at all the "usual phony" I thought he would turn out to be, actually sticking to his guns that he campaigned on. Not that David Dewhurst, who was the only other big contender in the primary, wouldn't have been a complete and utter phony. Of course, me being who I am, I let John Jay Myers take my vote with him back into relative obscurity.

Sep 19, 2013#247

Gilgamesh

Yeah, I agree that at this point Pelosi/Reid/Obama are only fighting for it in spirit and not actual functionality anymore. Sadly, in this case, both sides are wrong/stupid.

Sep 19, 2013#248

Krisken

What we really don't want to see is to have all those bits which were giveaways to insurance companies (such as everyone having to have health insurance) kept while getting rid of all the things people actually wanted (students on parent's health insurance, limit to profit by insurance companies before they have to pay back to their customers).

It's a terrible bill, I'm just not sure we can safely say it's bad parts are worse than the good parts are good.

Sep 19, 2013#249

AshburnerX

I think the goal right now is to pass it as bad legislation and then try to fix it later, when it'll be much harder to destroy the whole program.

Sep 19, 2013#250

GasBandit

Krisken said:
It's a terrible bill, I'm just not sure we can safely say it's bad parts are worse than the good parts are good.

That depends on whether or not you consider "pretty much a custom tailored silver bullet to guarantee the destruction of the private health insurance industry, acting to usher in the so-called necessity of single payer to fix what socialists themselves broke in the first place" to be a good or bad part.

Sep 19, 2013#251

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
That depends on whether or not you consider "pretty much a custom tailored silver bullet to guarantee the destruction of the private health insurance industry, acting to usher in the so-called necessity of single payer to fix what socialists themselves broke in the first place" to be a good or bad part.

Private Healthcare will never disappear because it's still around in countries with socialist medicine like Japan, England, and Canada. It's just going to become less common. All those people currently handling claims aren't going to go out of work ether... their insurance companies will shift gears and become contractors that process claims for the new system.

Really though, until the government is willing to bargain lower prices on medicine, parts, and services, it won't matter what system we do.

Sep 19, 2013#252

Eriol

AshburnerX said:
Private Healthcare will never disappear because it's still around in countries with socialist medicine like Japan, England, and Canada. It's just going to become less common. All those people currently handling claims aren't going to go out of work ether... their insurance companies will shift gears and become contractors that process claims for the new system.

Really though, until the government is willing to bargain lower prices on medicine, parts, and services, it won't matter what system we do.

Umm, WRONG. Private insurance in Canada can only pay for "upgrades" like private rooms (if one is even available) and a few other things on the ancillary of care, the most notable being prescription drugs. That's not small of course, but still, FAR different than it being available. Canada is one of THREE (3) countries in the world where it is illegal to pay for your own care, or get insurance to do so. The other two are North Korea, and Cuba, both obviously paragons of good health care.

You guys need serious reforms down there, but stop comparing to Canada. Ours is severely screwed up. Look to some of the other examples in Europe or elsewhere. All we have up here is the right to die on a waiting list. If the wait is significant for care (which it usually is), the rich buy it in the USA.

Sep 19, 2013#253

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Look to some of the other examples in Europe or elsewhere. All we have up here is the right to die on a waiting list.

Except not the UK either. It's commonly considered an understaffed circus of callous bureaucratic ineptitude.

Sep 19, 2013#254

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Except not the UK either. It's commonly considered an understaffed circus of callous bureaucratic ineptitude.

To be fair... it IS run by the British.

Sep 20, 2013#255

Bubble181

Krisken said:
What we really don't want to see is to have all those bits which were giveaways to insurance companies (such as everyone having to have health insurance) kept while getting rid of all the things people actually wanted (students on parent's health insurance, limit to profit by insurance companies before they have to pay back to their customers).

It's a terrible bill, I'm just not sure we can safely say it's bad parts are worse than the good parts are good.

GasBandit said:
That depends on whether or not you consider "pretty much a custom tailored silver bullet to guarantee the destruction of the private health insurance industry, acting to usher in the so-called necessity of single payer to fix what socialists themselves broke in the first place" to be a good or bad part.

So the left thinks this bill has been turned into a great big gift for insurance corps, and the right thinks this is a surefire way to destroy the insurance corps and nationalize everything? Huh. Guess the bill might actually be more balanced than I thought

GasBandit said:
Except not the UK either. It's commonly considered an understaffed circus of callous bureaucratic ineptitude.

So? Belgium's medical care is an understaffed circus of callous bureaucratic ineptitude, run by a bunch of nepotism-appointed incompetents, underfunded and oversized - and it's still widely considered to be in the top-10, often top-5, best health care systems in the world. If we didn't have such long waiting lists for some specific problems (not enough entirely-free permanent residence houses for mentally handicapped, and some organ transplant lists) it'd be even higher.

Eriol said:
The other two are North Korea, and Cuba, both obviously paragons of good health care.

NK's a joke, of course, but Cuba actually still does have great healthcare quality. It's stagnated, mostly due to supply issues caused by the US embargo, but the quality of doctors and follow-up services is considered the best of any third world nation.

Sep 20, 2013#256

Covar

Bubble181 said:
the best of any third world nation.

Wow that says a lot. :rolleyes:

Sep 20, 2013#257

Dei

No thanks, Obamacare. I'll pay the penalty
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/20/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/

And therein lies my biggest problem with Obamacare.

Sep 20, 2013#258

Bubble181

Covar said:
Wow that says a lot.

Yes it does. 3rd world isn't just Congo and Somalia, you know. Brazil and India are still counted as such as well, and are making very rapid progress.

Sep 20, 2013#259

Krisken

Bubble181 said:
So the left thinks this bill has been turned into a great big gift for insurance corps, and the right thinks this is a surefire way to destroy the insurance corps and nationalize everything? Huh. Guess the bill might actually be more balanced than I thought

So? Belgium's medical care is an understaffed circus of callous bureaucratic ineptitude, run by a bunch of nepotism-appointed incompetents, underfunded and oversized - and it's still widely considered to be in the top-10, often top-5, best health care systems in the world. If we didn't have such long waiting lists for some specific problems (not enough entirely-free permanent residence houses for mentally handicapped, and some organ transplant lists) it'd be even higher.

NK's a joke, of course, but Cuba actually still does have great healthcare quality. It's stagnated, mostly due to supply issues caused by the US embargo, but the quality of doctors and follow-up services is considered the best of any third world nation.

Essentially, the whole system is broke. Anyone who has seen an ICD-9 (or ICD-10) or CPT medical code book can attest to this.

Sep 20, 2013#260

strawman

Bubble181 said:
Yes it does. 3rd world isn't just Congo and Somalia, you know. Brazil and India are still counted as such as well, and are making very rapid progress.

Country classification is rarely used anymore in serious discussions due to the limitations of the measurements. If you measured the strength of the political system and the economy, Brazil would be a first world country. If you measure wealth distribution and human development rates it is teetering between second and third world.

I don't think the classification lends much useful data to a discussion on health care.

Sep 20, 2013#261

Bubble181

stienman said:
Country classification is rarely used anymore in serious discussions due to the limitations of the measurements. If you measured the strength of the political system and the economy, Brazil would be a first world country. If you measure wealth distribution and human development rates it is teetering between second and third world.

I don't think the classification lends much useful data to a discussion on health care.

Nor did I claim it did. It's just easy to dismiss stuff as "oh, Cuba, that's not saying anything" - handily ignoring that Cuba scores better than the US in a lot of indices concerning health care. (not all - it's far from perfect, nor o do I claim it to be). Since I'm lazy, i'm just going to point to Wikipedia, since any other source I have is either in Dutch or French. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

Feel free to go read there, but I'll just repeat that, as far as 3rd world countries go, Cuba is pretty much the best. On many levels, its health care can be favourable compared to the US'. Most sections where it's weak are due to lack of access to foreign markets - lack of modern medicines, poor facilities. Also, communism (low doctor pay, lack of patient/doctor choice)

I'm not claiming Cuba's health care system is the way to go. Nor Canada's, or Belgium's. I was only arguing that dismissing out of hand Cuba's health care system because it's Cuba is ridiculous, if you consider that, per capita, Cuba has more doctors, more nurses, more hospital beds, better screening for the most common cancers, and more facilities to care for mentally ill or psychiatric patients than the US (not all of this info is on the wikipedia page - but other source is in Dutch.)

Also...1/2/3rd world has more to do with the cold War sensibilities than economic worth.

Sep 20, 2013#262

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
So the left thinks this bill has been turned into a great big gift for insurance corps, and the right thinks this is a surefire way to destroy the insurance corps and nationalize everything? Huh. Guess the bill might actually be more balanced than I thought

Nope. As usual, the left is just wrong.

So? Belgium's medical care is an understaffed circus of callous bureaucratic ineptitude, run by a bunch of nepotism-appointed incompetents, underfunded and oversized - and it's still widely considered to be in the top-10, often top-5, best health care systems in the world. If we didn't have such long waiting lists for some specific problems (not enough entirely-free permanent residence houses for mentally handicapped, and some organ transplant lists) it'd be even higher.

Also a factor in belgian healthcare: Nobody lives there.

NK's a joke, of course, but Cuba actually still does have great healthcare quality. It's stagnated, mostly due to supply issues caused by the US embargo, but the quality of doctors and follow-up services is considered the best of any third world nation.

You need to stop watching Michael Moore "documentaries."

Sep 21, 2013#263

TommiR

On September 11th, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the article, Putin made his case to the American people on a way forward in Syria.

On September 19th, Pravda.ru published an opinion piece by US Senator John McCain in response to the NYT article. In the opEd, McCain hardly addressed any of the points raised by Putin, instead focusing on lambasting the Russian government on issues that have little to do with the Syrian conflict.

Way to go Senator, a brilliant display of statesmanship there. Shame you didn't get to be President of the United States, since that's totally the way to conduct foreign policy :rolleyes:

Sep 21, 2013#264

GasBandit

McCain needs to retire. So very, very badly.

Sep 21, 2013#265

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
McCain needs to retire. So very, very badly.

He really does. Prior to the 2008 election, he was basically the one Republican that a Democrat would seriously consider voting for because of his independent streak from his party and fairly impressive integrity. But he was forced to go "mainstream" Republican for the election and he's just never shifted back... to the point where it's actually become incredibly embarrassing.

Why is he still in politics? He already used up his one shot at the presidency and he doesn't have a chance of getting a governor seat. His reputation in the capital is shot. No one wants to work with him. At want point do you finally call it quits?

Sep 21, 2013#266

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
He really does. Prior to the 2008 election, he was basically the one Republican that a Democrat would seriously consider voting for because of his independent streak from his party and fairly impressive integrity. But he was forced to go "mainstream" Republican for the election and he's just never shifted back... to the point where it's actually become incredibly embarrassing.

Why is he still in politics? He already used up his one shot at the presidency and he doesn't have a chance of getting a governor seat. His reputation in the capital is shot. No one wants to work with him. At want point do you finally call it quits?

See, I see it from another perspective. Conservatives have seen McCain as a RINO for over a decade. It seemed like he never got over being passed over for GWB in the 2000 primary, and decided to spend the rest of that administration siding with Democrats more often than not. Hence, by the time 2008 rolled around and the tea party was really starting to kick into full gear, the Republican base was absolutely disgusted with him and didn't buy his move to the right, and not even trying to woo them with Sarah Palin as a running mate worked. In 2008 millions of Republicans stayed home because they felt there was nobody worth voting for while brainless youths (and not-so-youthfuls) were energized by hopey-changey bullshit. Of course, the Republican leadership didn't learn their lesson either, and in 2012 Republican votes fell by another 3 million when by all previous indications it should have been at least higher than McCain. But that's a different story for a different thread.

Point is, nobody has been happy to see McCain in a dozen years who didn't live and/or work inside the beltway. All that keeps him there is the same incumbency inertia that keeps sending guys like him, Reid and a score more out of touch fogeys back every 6 years just because they're a fixture. Heck, remember Strom Thurmond?

Sep 21, 2013#267

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Heck, remember Strom Thurmond?

No... having been to South Carolina, I'm fairly certain he represented them pretty honestly.

Sep 21, 2013#268

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
See, I see it from another perspective. Conservatives have seen McCain as a RINO for over a decade. It seemed like he never got over being passed over for GWB in the 2000 primary, and decided to spend the rest of that administration siding with Democrats more often than not. Hence, by the time 2008 rolled around and the tea party was really starting to kick into full gear, the Republican base was absolutely disgusted with him and didn't buy his move to the right, and not even trying to woo them with Sarah Palin as a running mate worked. In 2008 millions of Republicans stayed home because they felt there was nobody worth voting for while brainless youths (and not-so-youthfuls) were energized by hopey-changey bullshit. Of course, the Republican leadership didn't learn their lesson either, and in 2012 Republican votes fell by another 3 million when by all previous indications it should have been at least higher than McCain. But that's a different story for a different thread.

Sep 21, 2013#269

Covar

The context of Hercules in that pick is far superior than the caption.

Sep 22, 2013#270

Espy

Ugh.

"RINO".

GALDAMMIT NO ONE CAN DISAGREE WITH OUR MOST RIDICULOUS MEMBERS OR ELSE THEY ARE FAKES AND LIARS!

If we had more politicians willing to cross the aisle and work together things might not* be as horrible as they are now.

*of course, they might still be so you know, fuck it.

Sep 22, 2013#271

GasBandit

Espy said:
If we had more politicians willing to cross the aisle and work together things might not* be as horrible as they are now.

You mean like Reagan Democrats?

Sep 22, 2013#272

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
You mean like Clinton Republicans?

Yep.

Sep 22, 2013#273

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Yep.

Egh. Those guys were the worst.

Sep 26, 2013#274

Necronic

Dei said:
No thanks, Obamacare. I'll pay the penalty
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/20/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/

And therein lies my biggest problem with Obamacare.

If you can't afford 100$ a month you either have terrible priorities or you would qualify for medicaid/subsidies. From the article it says that anyone earning less than 400% of the poverty level will get subsidies. That's like half of america.

Man, I must be one of the only people left that still wants to see Obamacare through. And I'm not even really liberal.

Sep 26, 2013#275

GasBandit

Necronic said:
If you can't afford 100$ a month you either have terrible priorities or you would qualify for medicaid/subsidies. From the article it says that anyone earning less than 400% of the poverty level will get subsidies. That's like half of america.

Man, I must be one of the only people left that still wants to see Obamacare through. And I'm not even really liberal.

It's not binary. At 400% of the poverty level (which works out to be $44k/yr for one person, or $62k for a married couple, or $94k for a family of four), that's when your subsidy turns to 0. As you go under that, you get a (no pun intended) progressively larger subsidy. It's not, "I make 40k and live alone, BAM, subsidy time!" The subsidy's trigger is, apparently, that you're not supposed to pay more than 9.5% of your income to the insurance.

Ok, I actually just ran this calculator and it said 35k was over 400%, so I dunno whose figures they are using to calculate poverty level, but it's a lot lower than I thought. It said an age 21 individual making 30k/year could expect a $24 (that's twenty four dollar) annual subsidy on a $2500 yearly bronze level premium.

Sep 26, 2013#276

strawman

Necronic said:
If you can't afford 100$ a month you either have terrible priorities or you would qualify for medicaid/subsidies. From the article it says that anyone earning less than 400% of the poverty level will get subsidies. That's like half of america.

Man, I must be one of the only people left that still wants to see Obamacare through. And I'm not even really liberal.

There's a gap due to the way the affordable health care act works. The subsidies don't cover 100% of your healthcare costs. They may cover one of the lower plans fully, but you still have to pay up to 40% of your care as the plan only covers 60%.

There are various tax rebates that are supposed to help, and in theory the insurance company is supposed to handle most of them so you shouldn't have to pay out of pocket, but a lot of people are expecting that you either need to have no income at all to have free healthcare, or you need to jump up to nearly poverty level before you can afford the costs and out of pocket expenses you'll have to cover since you are making some money.

In theory this gap should be covered by medicaid, but there's still a lot of problems with the two programs so that they don't match up enough to provide a smooth transition between the two, leaving spots where you may actually face the problem without having terrible priorities and still not qualifying for medicaid and so forth.

It's quite messy and complicated, actually. An intelligent person with a lot of time could probably figure out where they can change things so they fit into the appropriate spot and get the coverage they need at the level they truly can afford, but with so many interacting pieces it's not trivial.

Nov 23, 2013#277

TommiR

The plan to destroy Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles has ran into difficulties, as they are having a hard time finding a country willing to take the chemicals for disposal. They are currently looking at destroying them out at sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/w...an-chemicals-on-barge-officials-say.html?_r=1&

Nov 25, 2013#278

Necronic

Because as we all know, stuff just dissapears when you put it in the ocean.

Nov 25, 2013#279

strawman

I'm sure that polluting 2/3rds of the surface of the earth with chemicals toxic to most life forms on our planet will have no repercussions.

Nov 25, 2013#280

SpecialKO

stienman said:
I'm sure that polluting 2/3rds of the surface of the earth with chemicals toxic to most life forms on our planet will have no repercussions.

None at all.

Nov 25, 2013#281

Chad Sexington

Necronic said:
Because as we all know, stuff just dissapears when you put it in the ocean.

Oh my god, you mean people are going to find all that emo poetry I wrote in junior high? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Nov 26, 2013#282

LordRendar

Why can I picture this so well, Chad standing on a pier during a grey winter morning, throwing poetry into the river.

Nov 26, 2013#283

GasBandit

That's why I burned my old diary and scattered the ashes.

Well, that and I lived in New Mexico at the time, and it would have been quite a schlep to the nearest ocean.

Forums