Syria

[quade 3]

ryoder

It is a sad commentary when everyone is caught off-guard by a POTUS following the Constitution, (for once).

"caught off-guard" or simply using it as yet another bitch point?

I have a conservative friend in Florida that was going off how the President was a coward because he didn't call a "special session of Congress" like it says he's "supposed to do" in the Constitution.

Uh, no.

It says he's authorized to.

I asked him when the last time a President called a special session and what the circumstances were and if it was comparable to this and if his bitch point was even valid.

Of course, it wasn't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]
It is a sad commentary when everyone is caught off-guard by a POTUS following the Constitution, (for once).

Following the Constitution aint what this is about. Saving face is what it's about. More bullshit.

Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. Which I will admit that I think is much better than doing the wrong thing for the right reasons

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

It's this kinda or poorly though out crap and the underlying messages it sends that got us in this trouble to begin with. Nobody saw it coming that he would go to Congress to save face? If so, then fire every one of the incompetent morons.

Perhaps Obama never intended to launch an immediate strike. He may have wanted the Syrian army to believe a strike was eminent, as this would highly degrade their current offensive capabilities.

[kallend 1,621]

lawrocket

[Quote]
It is a sad commentary when everyone is caught off-guard by a POTUS following the Constitution, (for once).

Following the Constitution aint what this is about. Saving face is what it's about. More bullshit.

Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. Which I will admit that I think is much better than doing the wrong thing for the right reasons

Or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons (Iraq).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***[Quote]
It is a sad commentary when everyone is caught off-guard by a POTUS following the Constitution, (for once).

Following the Constitution aint what this is about. Saving face is what it's about. More bullshit.

Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. Which I will admit that I think is much better than doing the wrong thing for the right reasons

Or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons (Iraq).

Which is what the President announced that he wants to do. And is hoping for a rubber stamp.

Just like his predecessor (Dubya).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

Which is what the President announced that he wants to do. And is hoping for a rubber stamp.

Just like his predecessor (Dubya).

You're overlooking at least one HUGE difference in the authorization GWB was looking for was publicly sold as retribution for 9/11. The "rubber stamp" was not only pretty much a sure thing, but was later warped and bastardized to justify the invasion into Iraq.

This, is not, that.

The current administration has already and very publicly placed limits on what this could be used for. For instance, "No boots on the ground."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,381]

lawrocket

[Quote]
It is a sad commentary when everyone is caught off-guard by a POTUS following the Constitution, (for once).

Following the Constitution aint what this is about. Saving face is what it's about. More bullshit.

Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. Which I will admit that I think is much better than doing the wrong thing for the right reasons

Oh, I agree the most likely reason is so Congress can save him from the embarrassment of being called on his bluff.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,381]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/unidentified-marine-sums-it-all

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

ryoder

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/unidentified-marine-sums-it-all

Horrible photo for several reasons, but probably the biggest is it's impossible to verify its authenticity.

For all I know that photo was made by the Syrian Electronic Army for propaganda purposes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

quade

This, is not, that.

this is true. However, that you felt the need to clarify shows how similar the situations are.

This is not that. But they are vary similar. However "this" is OK with many people (even with the "evidence" not having been shared with all the heads of state involved) while "that" was most certainly not OK with the same people.

--
Rob

[shropshire 0]

Also, if you take the Countries Dollar... some one above you pay grade gets to decide what you do or do not do (or go live in a Russian airport )

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 3]

rhaig

This is not that. But they are vary similar. However "this" is OK with many people (even with the "evidence" not having been shared with all the heads of state involved) while "that" was most certainly not OK with the same people.

My entire point in this thread is and still remains that the use of chemical weapons is completely and universally immoral due to their indiscriminate nature. Almost the entire civilized world recognizes and agree to that via treaties to ban them.

The President of the United States recognizes both the concept and treaties in place. He has no choice but to condemn their use; none. Notice I didn't say, Obama. I said, "The President of the United States." This would apply to anyone in that position; ANYONE.

The question becomes, "what to do about it?"

Again, the President has no public option other than to look for support. I'm not saying he will find it, but he has to look for it. He has to look for it internationally. He has to look for it in Congress. He has to look for it in the American people he represents.

There is one other option, one I've talked about before and even advocated before the start of the war in Iraq. You can easily search for it if you'd like. It would be him revoking EO12333.

Why GWB didn't do that is beyond me.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Skyrad 0]

quade

***Problem is that we still don't know with any certainty who did it. Investigation is ongoing.

I'll agree there is still AN investigation ongoing.

The problem is you, nor I, nor anybody outside of the "other" investigation can really ever be 100% certain, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the UN inspection team is not the only people on the planet capable of making a determination. It would be nice if they could provide independent confirmation so people like you and me can have confidence in whatever happens next.

The thing is that the USA is bankrupt when it comes to international confidence in the word of anonymous intelligence officials (Same goes for the UK). After the fabrication that took our nations to war in Iraq and the shit fest that turned out to be no one has any appetite for another war on the word of institutions that have shown they can not be trusted. The UN inspectors can be trusted to be impartial the USA can not.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[quade 3]

Skyrad

The thing is that the USA is bankrupt when it comes to international confidence in the word of anonymous intelligence officials (Same goes for the UK). After the fabrication that took our nations to war in Iraq and the shit fest that turned out to be no one has any appetite for another war on the word of institutions that have shown they can not be trusted. The UN inspectors can be trusted to be impartial the USA can not.

I can't disagree with that.

That said, I'm not sure what electronic intelligence the US was willing to share and I'm absolutely certain the scene had been compromised by the time the UN inspectors arrived.

Just a few weeks ago the planet went insane because Snowden gave just a few hints at the depth of electronic surveillance the US has at its disposal. Now, for some reason, they don't think that it matters in cases like this?

Okay, that's interesting.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

RobertMBlevins

The international ban has been in place for 88 years now.

But .. but Agent Orange (etc) has been used SINCE then .... u. Difficult to hold the high moral ground now, doncha think?

Also where did Sadam get his raw material and technology?

Now one could argue that all this too was in the past (if it's really not still happening) but it's still hard to climb that moral hill and expect everyone else to accept that you're clean....

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 3]

shropshire

***The international ban has been in place for 88 years now.

But .. but Agent Orange (etc) has been used SINCE then .... u. Difficult to hold the high moral ground now, doncha think?

Agent Orange was not a "chemical weapon" as defined and banned by treaties. It was a defoliant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

quade

******The international ban has been in place for 88 years now.

But .. but Agent Orange (etc) has been used SINCE then .... u. Difficult to hold the high moral ground now, doncha think?

Agent Orange was not a "chemical weapon" as defined and banned by treaties. It was a defoliant.


So it was a weapon of Bio-Mass destruction (couldn't resit that one)

That's a pretty big hair that you're splitting there matey.

so, zero side effects?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 3]

shropshire

so, zero side effects?

If that is your standard, then practically anything is a "chemical weapon." Hell, oxygen for that matter.

But we're talking about "chemical weapons" as defined by laws and treaties. Not simply whatever the hell we want to define it as.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AMax 0]

quade

IF the rockets had stamped on them "Made in the USA" I'm guessing it would be a pretty clear indication who used them and especially if there were a LOT of them and the munitions weren't exactly a secret

I find most of your arguments justifying the military action not supported by logical thinking and factual evidence, but this one is simply ridiculous. Have you studied history? Do you know how many American soldiers have been killed with US-made weapons that have been provided by the US government to Taliban and other radical groups? Do you understand the differences (or lack of thereof) between these groups and Syrian rebels? Needless to say, I am strongly against the use of CWs by anyone and in any circumstances. Just saying you should educate yourself and THINK before posting.

[quade 3]

Of course . . . Of course, US personnel have been killed by conventional weapons of US manufacture. That's not in any way, shape or form in question.

How many Americans have been killed by NBC weapons of their own design that have been captured by the enemy and fired back?

None.

Far less common. Held in far more high security storage.

It is not unreasonable to assume other countries would take the same reasonable precautions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AMax 0]

You comparing apples and oranges. Syrian territory (including the areas were CWs are thought to be stored) is controlled by two military groups that are currently in a state of war. This instability has been, to a great extent, fueled by the West. That said, how can you rule out the possibility of Syrian rebels getting access (and, potentially using) the CWs? Note that I am not saying it's impossible that CWs were used by Assad's regime, but rather arguing that the publicly available evidence for later remains circumstantial.
The second, and pore important, question is what will the US and whole wold really gain from a potential military strike? Nothing ...

[quade 3]

AMax

The second, and pore important, question is what will the US and whole wold really gain from a potential military strike? Nothing ...

Asked and answered in this thread...several times.

What do I "gain" by stopping a parent from beating a child or breaking up some thugs on a street corner holding a dog fight?

Don't act as if there is no responsibility to at least ask the question if we should stop it. We have to at least ASK the question.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AMax 0]

If you learn the history and expand your sources of information with non-US (or pro-Western) media, you may start to realize that US and other countries, including Russia, have a long history of forcefully removing "bad parents" with devastating consequences for their "children". For example, compare Iraq during and after Saddam's regime. The key to making right political decisions is to think more than one step ahead. While I do not support Assad, I find the perspective of his current radical opponents (who only use the help from the West for their own advantage - again, think Taliban in 1980's during the Soviet war in Afghanistan) extremely dangerous for long-term stability in the region.

[masterblaster72 0]

quade

***so, zero side effects?

If that is your standard, then practically anything is a "chemical weapon." Hell, oxygen for that matter.

But we're talking about "chemical weapons" as defined by laws and treaties. Not simply whatever the hell we want to define it as.

The law might say that Agent Orange isn't a chemical weapon. Reality says otherwise, and its effects are still felt today among children in Vietnam.

http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/30/effects-of-agent-orange-ongoing-silently-in-children/

The US certainly does not hold the moral high ground on the issue of chemical warfare.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

The second, and pore important, question is what will the US and whole wold really gain from a potential military strike? Nothing ...

Perhaps. On the other hand, what do we gain by allowing a country to manufacture, stockpile, and use chemical weapons with impunity? Laws (and treaties are laws) that are not enforced may as well not exist. The world's experience with poison gas in WWI was so horrible that the entire world agreed to ban such weapons forever, and indeed for all the other atrocities that war has brought since we have managed to avoid that one, with the exception of a few instances such as in the Iran-Iraq war. Now we seem prepared to send a message that such weapons are again OK, or at least we won't do anything about it if we catch you using them. Great. All these little pain-in-the-ass countries may not be able to match the US, or NATO or whatever in troops or aircraft, but by God or Allah they'll have rockets loaded with Sarin gas and if we don't like what they're up to they'll make sure we get a good lungful.

Do we really want to return to the days when gas attacks were just another weapon of war, or a threat to be trotted out when convenient to extract some concession?

It sucks that there is no clear good guy side in Syria so we don't know if what comes next could be as bad or worse than the current regime. I can also see why people are reluctant to take action just to avenge the deaths of a bunch of people who have no close connection to our interests. But I wonder what problems we will create for ourselves down the road if we send the message that chemical weapons can once again be openly stockpiled and used and we'll just wring our hands and bluster. It's even more disheartening to me that some people seem willing to embrace this future for no better reason than the opportunity to rub Obama's face in his words.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)