War with Syria

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

the traitor

Don't be so fast to presume majority agreement of the American people on that. I dare say that the more info that comes out weekly, the fewer American people you'll find agree with that label. A democratic society is a fallacy if the people are uninformed as to the facts and the truth. And no, I'm not remotely naive about the necessity for classified information.

(This being said, there are Snowden-dedicated threads on here that we can re-visit to continue this side debate, as I don't want us to hijack this one away from its topic of Syria.)

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

That said, I think that this president, or any president should be given the power when asked. Then the President owns it. Just as the left says Bush owns Iraq

Trust me. The left will call it as it is for Obama too. They'll be quick to say he owns this war (a lot of my liberal friends are already not speaking too kindly of him with respect to this decision). You make it sound like they won't blame him the same and that they assign blame to bush for Iraq just because it's Bush. Not true-- it's because it's war (one we don't have to be in) and it doesn't matter who the president is who pulls the trigger on it. I think he's going to loose a lot of support from the far left if he goes on with this.

Just my .02

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[ryoder 1,400]

"A war the Pentagon doesn’t want" - Robert H. Scales, retired Army major general:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

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

[aphid 0]

ryoder

"A war the Pentagon doesn’t want" - Robert H. Scales, retired Army major general:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

It's my understanding (looking for correction, if I'm mistaken) that a retired soldier on a pension is still considered on reserve-status and eligible for call-up without notice for a number of years following. (As told to me by a retired USN sub-commander).

If that's the case, are they still bound by the military code which is supposed to prevent them speaking publicly in political terms against their civilian masters?

Don't get me wrong, I think the opinion piece was interesting.

Although, he did make me grimace once again with this common delusion:

"They (soldiers) understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military."

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Then tell us, what is your solution that puts tin-pot dictators on notice not to use NBC warfare and doesn't otherwise affect the future history of Syria?

If the question is what should the US, do, it's nothing. We long ago shot to hell any credibility here, ignoring bad shit when it convenient. As an example, we're still pretending that Egypt didn't have a coup so we can ignore our own laws regarding foreign aid.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

It's my understanding (looking for correction, if I'm mistaken) that a retired soldier on a pension is still considered on reserve-status and eligible for call-up without notice for a number of years following. (As told to me by a retired USN sub-commander).

If that's the case, are they still bound by the military code which is supposed to prevent them speaking publicly in political terms against their civilian masters?

First, while the US Navy does have submarine commanders, it does not have Sub-Commanders; those would be the Romulans. You can easily distinguish the two by the different haircut styles.

More to your point: I haven't looked it up because it's Saturday, dammit, but my presumption is that that might only kick in while the person is on duty status; otherwise he's basically an on-call civilian and can say whatever he wants while in his civilian capacity. Hm, or maybe it has to do with his level of reserve status? OK, I don't know. But DavJohns (who's JAG, I think) or Lawrocket (who was a shavetail) might help us out here.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

First, while the US Navy does have submarine commanders, it does not have Sub-Commanders; those would be the Romulans. You can easily distinguish the two by the different haircut styles.

You crack me up Andy

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

[Tink1717 2]

Get the Saudis, Turks, Jordains and Israelis to deal with it. It's their backyard.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[rushmc 18]

LyraM45

Quote

That said, I think that this president, or any president should be given the power when asked. Then the President owns it. Just as the left says Bush owns Iraq

Trust me. The left will call it as it is for Obama too. They'll be quick to say he owns this war (a lot of my liberal friends are already not speaking too kindly of him with respect to this decision). You make it sound like they won't blame him the same and that they assign blame to bush for Iraq just because it's Bush. Not true-- it's because it's war (one we don't have to be in) and it doesn't matter who the president is who pulls the trigger on it. I think he's going to loose a lot of support from the far left if he goes on with this.

Just my .02

I am finding this thread a fascinating reveal of how those on the left think.

But, it is good to know that quade would today support the invasion of Iraq since we know that SH used CW's on his own people

But, to your point, they will NEVER blame him (Obama) on the same level
This is not about the person or the party
This is about liberalism
To them, it has to survive at all costs
Liberals will throw even Obama under the bus to protect this religion

And yes, I am serious

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

[billvon 2,434]

>But, to your point, they will NEVER blame him (Obama) on the same level

They may not but I will. A pointless war is a pointless war; it doesn't matter what letter is after the president's name. What does matter are the number of US troops (and innocent civilians) killed, and to a lesser degree how much we spend killing people needlessly.

[oldwomanc6 38]

billvon

A pointless war is a pointless war

And this would be one at this point.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[quade 3]

oldwomanc6

*** A pointless war is a pointless war

And this would be one at this point.

Watch this and then tell me if it is "pointless" to attempt to stop this kind of suffering.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/07/politics/us-syria-chemical-attack-videos/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,434]

>Watch this and then tell me if it is "pointless" to attempt to stop this kind of suffering.

If we end that kind of suffering and begin the kind of suffering that Iraq saw - yes, it is pointless. Substituting US bombs for Syrian bombs is pointless.

[quade 3]

billvon

>Watch this and then tell me if it is "pointless" to attempt to stop this kind of suffering.

If we end that kind of suffering and begin the kind of suffering that Iraq saw - yes, it is pointless. Substituting US bombs for Syrian bombs is pointless.

IF.

The point is that it's not "pointless" to try to do something.

Precisely what that something is has yet to be determined.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[oldwomanc6 38]

quade

***>Watch this and then tell me if it is "pointless" to attempt to stop this kind of suffering.

If we end that kind of suffering and begin the kind of suffering that Iraq saw - yes, it is pointless. Substituting US bombs for Syrian bombs is pointless.

IF.

The point is that it's not "pointless" to try to do something.

Precisely what that something is has yet to be determined.

This is not a time to say "Do something!!!!! even if it's wrong."

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[quade 3]

oldwomanc6

This is not a time to say "Do something!!!!! even if it's wrong."

Nobody is saying that. Nobody.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[oldwomanc6 38]

Obviously, you missed "at this point."

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[winsor 187]

quade

***This is not a time to say "Do something!!!!! even if it's wrong."

Nobody is saying that. Nobody.

Wrong, as usual.

[LyraM45 0]

billvon

>But, to your point, they will NEVER blame him (Obama) on the same level

They may not but I will. A pointless war is a pointless war; it doesn't matter what letter is after the president's name. What does matter are the number of US troops (and innocent civilians) killed, and to a lesser degree how much we spend killing people needlessly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

But, to your point, they will NEVER blame him (Obama) on the same level
This is not about the person or the party
This is about liberalism
To them, it has to survive at all costs
Liberals will throw even Obama under the bus to protect this religion

And yes, I am serious

They will never blame obama on the same level? I'm already seeing my most liberal friends drafting signs up and sitting in the center of larger cities protesting this. Some of those signs do not have kind words for Obama and his war on them. Trust me, they can get vicious in a situation like this.

Explain to me more what you mean about protecting liberalism? First you said they wouldn't blame Obama, but now you're saying they'll blame him but only to protect liberalism? ......or maybe they just call a duck if it's a duck? It is possible to hate war on a bipartisan level.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>But, to your point, they will NEVER blame him (Obama) on the same level

They may not but I will. A pointless war is a pointless war; it doesn't matter what letter is after the president's name. What does matter are the number of US troops (and innocent civilians) killed, and to a lesser degree how much we spend killing people needlessly.

Agreed
Now this
This MIGHT make sense
(not an indication of my support or not)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176040/obamas-syria-war-really-about-iran-and-israel#

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

[champu 1]

quade

The point is that it's not "pointless" to try to do something.

Precisely what that something is has yet to be determined.

You've done this on at least one other topic here as well and, as always, it's not a sensible way to approach a problem. You cannot take "doing nothing" off the table until there is at least one "something" on the table that is better than "doing nothing."

Cost. Risk*. Reward. You can define it for doing nothing just like anything else. This Platonic Form of "some action that makes a good compromise" is crap, please stop asserting its existence.

Are there things we could do? Sure, there are a lot of options. We could push for a UN-led, US-backed mandated stand-down and march through the country securing and destroying all chemical weapons we can find. That would be consistant with the international safety concerns about chemical weapons usage and it even has the added benefit of being agnostic about the perpetrators of the Aug 21st attack in case people still have doubts. Cost. Risk. Reward. Is that better than doing nothing? I'd say no. Reward is moderate. Risk is moderate. But the rent is too damn high (as they say.)

*Risk in the risk management sense, not the "common" meaning where people just use it as a synonym for dangerous.

[quade 3]

The defeatist attitude.

Sigh.

People make me lose faith in humanity.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,434]

>The defeatist attitude.

As I recall, you promoted the 'defeatist attitude' on Iraq very, very strongly.

[quade 3]

billvon

>The defeatist attitude.

As I recall, you promoted the 'defeatist attitude' on Iraq very, very strongly.

You recall incorrectly.

Here. Look at this thread.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=197545;search_string=iraq;#197545

Does this look like I'm promoting, "the 'defeatist attitude' on Iraq very, very strongly"?

I was cautiously optimistic about the mission in general based on the UN briefing by Powell.

That said, I was (still am) angry as hell when it turned out to be a con by the signatory members of the PNAC. Not only did it not accomplish the intended mission, it diverted troops from the capture/kill of UBL.

Some may see parallels in this.

I see parallels to the "America First" movement after WWI and attitudes that kept the US from giving more help to Europe from 1936 onward into WWII.

It's all point of view I suppose.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver