War with Syria

[Stumpy 256]

Gravitymaster

Note the date.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/02/romneys-plan-could-put-75000-troops-syria/49091/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11791449

Wow - even a stopped clock...
Regardless - usually best not to lead with a Mail story.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yeah, I knew you would consider Democratic Underground as a credible source.

[beowulf 1]

I am not convinced that this push from the Obama administration to go to war with Syria has anything to do with chemical weapons. It's been very clear that Obama wants this war and he is just trying to drum up support. And don't bother to claim they aren't wanting to go to war. Bombing is an act of war. It's same as how a woman can't be just a little pregnant.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

I find this much more compelling then the bullshit Obama and John Kerry are pushing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's what a NYT's Editorial might have gone like if Romney had been elected instead of Obama.

Quote

It is a sad measure of how distressingly backward this nation has fallen in just a few short months that President W. Mitt Romney now harkens back to the international lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney years by proposing a completely unauthorized, unilateral strike on Syria - and this in response to "evidence" of chemical weapons attacks we find no more compelling than the now throroughly discredited claims of WMD possession made by Bush and Cheney against Saddam Hussein.

Is America really returning to cowboy unilateralism to this extreme?

Mr. Romney's insistence that Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people is far from a slam dunk, as many regional media reports dispute the U.S. version of events. What's more, the White House insistence that it will only launch a limited aerial attack with "no boots on the ground" is laughable on its face, as the history of Republican administrations demonstrates a lust for Middle Eastern blood that will surely lead to an all-out ground assault and an inevitable quagmire as we once again undertake a quixotic pursuit of nation-building in a place where we are neither wanted nor needed.

To the extent that Mr. Assad has been guilty of atrocities, we can't help but wonder how Mr. Romney might have calmed the situation with a more diplomatic approach to the relationship. His choice of John Bolton as special emmisary to the region has only inflamed anti-U.S. sentiments, and his ill-advised statements of unqualified support for right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have had the unfortunate effect of stunting useful dialogue with moderates in the region.

We also wish Vice President Paul Ryan would stop making unhelpful pronouncements condemning Al Qaeda when we thought the emotions of post-9/11 hysteria had finally receded under the calm, realism-based leadership of former President Barack H. Obama.

In typical Republican fashion, Mr. Romney gives little credence to international law as he pays wanton disregard to the role of the U.N. Security Council. If Russia and China threaten vetoes, that is no excuse to disdain the process. Rather, it shows Mr. Romney's need to be a real diplomat for a change and to seek international consensus.

America should have learned from Iraq that we cannot bomb our way to a friendly Middle East. Sadly, the Romney team of Bush re-treads and right-wing fanatics appears to have limitless faith in U.S. power, and simply cannot resist the urge to send missiles flying and bombs dropping in the delusional hope that this will somehow bring calm to the situation.

We urge a full congressional investigation of Mr. Romney's claims, and of the sources he cites in making them. America cannot afford another presidency that confuses might with right, and that squanders our international prestige in so doing.

This is not the time to go back to the days of shoot first, ask questions later.

[quade 3]

Yeah, I get all my information from nutbag prepper sites too.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,381]

>We don't have the money to pay for an actual invasion.

We didn't have it last time either. Unfortunately we don't have a history of taking that into consideration before committing our military.

[shropshire 0]

Gravitymaster

***Stop making up fantasies.
You're not helping your argument in any way with this sort of silliness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html

Please don't use the Mail as a valid source to support any argument .. it really is an atrocious rag.

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

[shropshire 0]

RobertMBlevins

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government.

Still going with the FACT that you know that is what happened?

I hate the FACT that it happened, I just do not know WHO did it yet. How come you're so sure?

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

[shropshire 0]

RobertMBlevins

******Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government.

Still going with the FACT that you know that is what happened?

I hate the FACT that it happened, I just do not know WHO did it yet. How come you're so sure?

Because I believe The Prez on this one.

Where's the O.M.G icon?

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

billvon

>We don't have the money to pay for an actual invasion.

We didn't have it last time either. Unfortunately we don't have a history of taking that into consideration before committing our military.

We will all be waiting for your criticism of the Democrats in Congress and Obama to reach the same level as it did with the Republicans and Bush.

So far, I don't think it has.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/04/senate-breaks-own-rules-in-rush-to-vote-on-syria-war.html

[Andy9o8 0]

RobertMBlevins

******Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government.

Still going with the FACT that you know that is what happened?

I hate the FACT that it happened, I just do not know WHO did it yet. How come you're so sure?

Because I believe The Prez on this one.

WHAT IS THE BAS... ... er .... ... What is the basis for your conclusion?

(Sorry, you almost had me sucked into the D.B. Cooper thread posting style.)

[rushmc 18]

quade

Yeah, I get all my information from nutbag prepper sites too.

After seeing what you have posted about Limbaugh, I kNOW you do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

shropshire

***Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government.

Still going with the FACT that you know that is what happened?

I hate the FACT that it happened, I just do not know WHO did it yet. How come you're so sure?

Interesting point
On the way to work this moring it was reported that the UN (not my favorite org) says both sides have used CW's .
The report came out early this week.
This makes more sense given some of the reports and admissions coming out of the area

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[beowulf 1]

RobertMBlevins

***I am not convinced that this push from the Obama administration to go to war with Syria has anything to do with chemical weapons. It's been very clear that Obama wants this war and he is just trying to drum up support. And don't bother to claim they aren't wanting to go to war. Bombing is an act of war. It's same as how a woman can't be just a little pregnant.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

I find this much more compelling then the bullshit Obama and John Kerry are pushing.

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government. Does this action remind you of anything from 20th century history?

There is a REASON why chemical weapons were banned after World War 1, you know. People often make issues political, when in reality they are moral.

I don't think the US Gov really cares about the children. Bombing Syria will not make them safer.

[beowulf 1]

quade

Yeah, I get all my information from nutbag prepper sites too.

I don't necessarily believe everything they write, but I do find it more credible then the story the Obama admin is pushing. Try attacking the information rather then the source. Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean they are wrong.

[winsor 185]

RobertMBlevins

***I am not convinced that this push from the Obama administration to go to war with Syria has anything to do with chemical weapons. It's been very clear that Obama wants this war and he is just trying to drum up support. And don't bother to claim they aren't wanting to go to war. Bombing is an act of war. It's same as how a woman can't be just a little pregnant.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

I find this much more compelling then the bullshit Obama and John Kerry are pushing.

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government. Does this action remind you of anything from 20th century history?

There is a REASON why chemical weapons were banned after World War 1, you know. People often make issues political, when in reality they are moral.

I have to call bullshit across the board here.

For one thing, the "rebels" have been caught with some of their supplies of Sarin, in particular, being smuggled in through Turkey.

For another, there have been reports of the deaths being the result of mishandling of Sarin by said "rebels."

Putin's comments regarding the characteristics of the event and the likely culprits were spot on. It may have been the Syrian Gov't, but at least as likely the "rebels."

As far as the whys and wherefores of the ban on CWs, I refer you to Ian V. Hogg's "Gas," which addresses the subject line and verse. Like most legislation attempting to make a kinder, gentler world by controlling weaponry, the ban was a kneejerk combination of emotion and ignorance.

Don't get me wrong, antipersonnel toxins have had significant effect on my family tree, and I am not advocating their use. I do, however, consider ignorance, hysteria and outright stupidity to be a greater threat when all is said and done, and we seem to have an endless supply of all three (as well as WMDs...), and no compunction about using them.

Before we start mucking about in the dreadful affairs of other countries, I suggest we do a little homework regarding how things may be expected to turn out. In-depth evaluations of the Spanish Civil War and the Russian Revolutions are enlightening.

Re: the Spanish Civil War - "Homage to Catalonia" notwithstanding - Francos turns out to have been about the ideal side to prevail. Given the war that raged around Spain after the dust settled, and the fact that NO Spanish troops were committed to either side of the slaughter, I'd say that made up for a lot.

In any event, close inspection shows Assad to be an enlightened moderate compared to the bulk of the assholes operating in opposition to him. This seems to be a classic case of MUCH better the devil you know, and all that.

We are pretty good at the military stuff. The Russians play chess as a national hobby, and do a much better job of the diplomatic arcana.

All things being said, turning the issue over to the idiots, incompetents and various dunderheads we routinely deport to Washington DC is a VERY BAD IDEA - unless you seek the worst possible outcome.


BSBD,

Winsor

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Because I believe The Prez on this one.

Yes it is a clear cut case. The attack was the spontaneous result from an internet video. Yes Obama and his people have never lied, so why would they possibly lie now?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[wayneflorida 0]

ryoder

Here is an interesting argument:

If a US strike weakens the Assad regime, and it is toppled by the rebels, with no US boots on the ground, that puts Syria's 1000 tons of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels, including Al-Queda.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/277953-syria-strikes-would-risk-loss-of-control-of-chemical-weapons/

Maybe we have the word of the rebels that our boots could come in and secure those weapons. Ha-Ha.

[rushmc 18]

I have to admit
Watching the Obama supporters twist with this is a something to see


And now it appears Obama will not get congressional approval to attack. If this holds, will he overstep his powers again?


So everyone knows, I think IF we bomb them, it should be BOTH sides because it appears BOTH sides have used CW's.
This I could support.

But is it shameful watching Obama and his admin handle this one. And sad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 620]

Meh.
It's tit for Bush/Cheney.

[rushmc 18]

normiss

Meh.
It's tit for Bush/Cheney.

Of course
Obama is not held responcible for anything he does

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

grue

***
Do you think people, once they get into power no mattter where they are, are justified in killing their own citizens in such a shit way? Imagine if OUR President ordered such a thing due to protest or whatever. You can't. It's unimaginable because this is America and we don't do that against our own citizens. We may not be perfect, but we do live under the rule of law. We don't simply execute our own people using poison gas when there is a problem with the government. There are avenues. There are rules. There is JUSTICE. There is not gassing.

Yeah if you're gonna kill your own citizens, only drones are acceptable.

California used a gas chamber on citizens until quite recently.

Now the backwoods states use lethal injections.

...

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

[kallend 1,621]

Gravitymaster

***Stop making up fantasies.
You're not helping your argument in any way with this sort of silliness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html

Daily Mail? Makes a change from UFO stories

...

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

[winsor 185]

rushmc

I have to admit
Watching the Obama supporters twist with this is a something to see


And now it appears Obama will not get congressional approval to attack. If this holds, will he overstep his powers again?


So everyone knows, I think IF we bomb them, it should be BOTH sides because it appears BOTH sides have used CW's.
This I could support.

But is it shameful watching Obama and his admin handle this one. And sad

According to this, it is the opposition who has the most solid track record for using CWs.

The Syrian Gov't has little to gain and much to lose by verifiably using CWs, but the opposition is largely immune from international outrage. What do they have to lose? If it turns out to be an opposition group that is responsible, which one in particular is it?

Given the internecine squabbles between the various factions aligned against the Syrian Gov't, killing some of their competition and having the blame fall on the Gov't is a definite win/win situation for most any of them. With the credulous morons in Washington evaluating the situation and deciding upon the basis of what they think they know, a better use of CWs could not be made.

Deception is cheaper and more effective than brute force, which is a lesson we have yet to learn.


BSBD,

Winsor

[DanG 1]

Quote

California used a gas chamber on citizens until quite recently

That comparison might be valid if the execution method were releasing poison gas over the convict's home town. Putting a single, identified individual in contact with gas is not what upsets people. It's the fact that gas is, by it's nature, not a disciminate weapon.

- Dan G