Send in the carriers! :mad:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130821
QuoteBEIRUT/AMMAN | Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:46pm EDT
(Reuters) - Syria's opposition accused government forces of gassing hundreds of people on Wednesday by firing rockets that released deadly fumes over rebel-held Damascus suburbs, killing men, women and children as they slept.
With the dead estimated between 500 and 1,300, what would be the world's most lethal chemical weapons attack since the 1980s prompted an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council in New York.
Immediate international action is likely to be limited, with the divisions among major powers that have crippled efforts to quell two and a half years of civil war still much in evidence.
Russia backed up denials from the administration of President Bashar al-Assad by saying it looked like a rebel "provocation" to discredit him.
Britain voiced the opposite view: "I hope this will wake up some who have supported the Assad regime to realize its murderous and barbaric nature," Foreign Secretary William Hague said on a visit to Paris.
France, Britain, the United States and others called for an immediate on-site investigation by U.N. chemical weapons inspectors who arrived in the Syrian capital only this week. Moscow, urging an "objective" inquiry, said the very presence of that team suggested government forces were not to blame.
U.S. President Barack Obama has made the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces a "red line" that in June triggered more U.S. aid to the rebels. But previous, smaller and disputed cases of their deployment have not brought the all-out military intervention rebel leaders have sought to break a stalemate.
U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican critic of Obama's Syria policy, said on Twitter that failure to penalize previous gas attacks had emboldened Assad: "No consequence for Assad using chemical weapons & crossing red line," he said. "We shouldn't be surprised he's using them again."
The Security Council, where Russia has vetoed previous Western efforts to impose U.N. penalties on Assad, began a closed-door meeting but is not expected to take decisive action, with the big powers still at loggerheads.
Images, including some by freelance photographers supplied to Reuters, showed scores of bodies - some of them small children - laid on the floor of a clinic with no visible signs of injury. Some showed people with foam around their mouths.
The United States and others said it had no independent confirmation that chemical weapons had been used. U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said the head of the inspection team in Damascus was already discussing the latest claims with the government.
"SLEEPING DEAD"
Opposition activists cited death tolls ranging from about 500 to, by one account, some 1,300 after shells and rockets fell around 3 a.m. (0000 GMT) on Wednesday. In 1988, 3,000 to 5,000 Iraqi Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein's forces at Halabja.
One man who said he had retrieved victims in the suburb of Erbin told Reuters: "We would go into a house and everything was in its place. Every person was in their place. They were lying where they had been. They looked like they were asleep."
Doctors interviewed described symptoms they believe point to sarin gas, one of the agents Western powers accuse Damascus of having in an undeclared chemical weapons stockpile.
Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi said the allegations were "illogical and fabricated". Assad's officials have said they would never use poison gas against Syrians. The United States and European allies believe Assad's forces have used small amounts of sarin before, hence the current U.N. visit.
An opposition monitoring group, citing figures compiled from clinics in the Damascus suburbs, put the death toll at 494 - 90 percent killed by gas, the rest by bombs and conventional arms. The rebel Syrian National Coalition said 650 people died.
Activists said rockets with chemical agents hit the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar during a fierce pre-dawn bombardment by government forces. The Damascus Media Office said 150 bodies were counted in Hammouriya, 100 in Kfar Batna, 67 in Saqba, 61 in Douma, 76 in Mouadamiya and 40 in Erbin.
A nurse at Douma Emergency Collection facility, Bayan Baker, said: "Many of the casualties are women and children. They arrived with their pupils constricted, cold limbs and foam in their mouths. The doctors say these are typical symptoms of nerve gas victims."
Extensive amateur video and photographs appeared on the Internet showing victims choking, some foaming at the mouth.
A video purportedly shot in the Kafr Batna neighborhood showed a room filled with more than 90 bodies, many of them children and a few women and elderly men. Most of the bodies appeared ashen or pale but with no visible injuries.
Other footage showed doctors treating people in makeshift clinics. One video showed the bodies of a dozen people lying on the floor of a clinic. A voiceover said they were members of a single family. In a corridor outside lay another five bodies.
Syria is one of just a handful of countries that are not parties to the international treaty that bans chemical weapons, and Western nations believe it has caches of undeclared mustard gas, sarin and VX nerve agents.
(Additional reporting by Erika Solomon in Beirut and Anthony Deutsch in Amsterdam, Niklas Pollard in Stockholm and Thomas Grove in Moscow; Writing by Peter Graff, Dominic Evans and Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Will Waterman)
WMDs means nukes. It has to be nukes or it didn't happen.
Go Bashir! :yeah:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2013, 05:37:10 PM
WMDs means nukes. It has to be nukes or it didn't happen.
Now it means anything from a pipebomb, a pressure cooker or an rpg.
Quote from: citizen k on August 21, 2013, 05:47:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 21, 2013, 05:37:10 PM
WMDs means nukes. It has to be nukes or it didn't happen.
Now it means anything from a pipebomb, a pressure cooker or an rpg.
Does that mean that we can expect Steve Jackson to be targetted for a drone strike?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 21, 2013, 05:35:55 PM
Send in the carriers! :mad:
And do what exactly, numbnuts? Accelerate its transition to the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria?
The timing on this attack seems a bit odd. Why would Assad do this now, when he's getting the upper hand, and when there are actual UN chemical weapons inspectors in the country?
But yeah, send in the carriers :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2013, 06:18:44 PM
The timing on this attack seems a bit odd. Why would Assad do this now, when he's getting the upper hand, and when there are actual UN chemical weapons inspectors in the country?
Because he can.
QuoteDoes Anybody Care If Assad Uses Chemical Weapons Again?
By Jeffrey Goldberg - Aug 21, 2013
Bloomberg
It was a year ago, almost to the day, that President Barack Obama warned the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, not to deploy chemical weapons in his fight to stay in power. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus," Obama said. "That would change my equation." He went on: "We're monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans." Earlier, the president had said that Assad would be "held accountable by the international community" if he made the "tragic mistake" of using these weapons.
As we know now, Assad did use these weapons, on repeated occasions, in small-scale attacks. The administration's response to these confirmed reports of chemical weapons use came in June, when it authorized the transfer of small arms to the rebels, small arms the administration acknowledged would not tip the rebellion toward success.
There was one other international response to the use of these chemical weapons: After much delay, the United Nations sent a team of chemical weapons investigators to Syria this week. That team is, right now, not far from the Ghouta region east of Damascus, where, overnight, the Syrian regime is alleged to have launched its largest chemical weapons attack to date. The number of dead -- mostly civilians, including many children according to the reports we have -- stands anywhere from several dozen to more than a thousand. The videos of the attack aftermath, now being posted on YouTube at a rapid clip, are absolutely horrendous.
Two questions are raised by reports of this attack. The first, of course, is whether it happened the way Syrian rebels said it happened. That is why immediately dispatching the UN team, already in-country, to the affected areas is so vital. If this process worked the way it should, they would be there already. If the Syrian regime denies the UN inspectors permission to visit these areas, well, that is kind of an answer in itself.
The second question is, why would the Assad regime launch its biggest chemical attack on rebels and civilians precisely at the moment when a UN inspection team was parked in Damascus? The answer to that question is easy: Because Assad believes that no one -- not the UN, not President Obama, not other Western powers, not the Arab League -- will do a damn thing to stop him.
There is a good chance he is correct.
I checked CNN and the story wasn't a headline (it was off to the side a bit).
I checked Fox News, and it was a somewhat buried story with an Obama oriented headline.
Even the BBC didn't have it as the lead (that was Bradley Manning), but at least gave it second billing.
Obama should pause the reset of the redline.
I hope Assad wins. :)
Is the utility of chemical weapons actually high enough to warrant their use?
I mean, I am not sure what the point is - it doesn't seem like it worth the trouble.
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2013, 06:56:03 PM
I hope Assad wins. :)
Remove those disapproval points mister!
:)
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2013, 06:57:10 PM
Is the utility of chemical weapons actually high enough to warrant their use?
I mean, I am not sure what the point is - it doesn't seem like it worth the trouble.
Show he is the baddest mother on the block? About the only reason I can think of.
Well, we know that the rebels are completely dishonest. But on the other hand, we know that Assad thinks (correctly) that the West is too cowardly to stop him.
Assad gets +2 die roll modifier for 3 turns.
We should've always supported Ba'athism back in the day. But noooo, smelled too much like communism.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2013, 06:57:10 PM
Is the utility of chemical weapons actually high enough to warrant their use?
I mean, I am not sure what the point is - it doesn't seem like it worth the trouble.
Point seems obvious to me. Your enemy holds terrain with defensive advantages, like a built up area. Just gas them and they're dead. No need to send your own guys to root them out, exposing themselves to danger.
Plus the terror component: resist us and this will happen to you.
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2013, 07:01:35 PM
Well, we know that the rebels are completely dishonest. But on the other hand, we know that Assad thinks (correctly) that the West is too cowardly to stop him.
Maybe not. It isn't as though Assad is extremely secure atm. A bombing campaign wouldn't do him any favors and wouldn't cause the west to put much, if any, skin in the game.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:04:40 PM
We should've always supported Ba'athism back in the day. But noooo, smelled too much like communism.
It looked good on paper. Sadly it mutated into something quite nasty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2013, 07:06:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2013, 06:57:10 PM
Is the utility of chemical weapons actually high enough to warrant their use?
I mean, I am not sure what the point is - it doesn't seem like it worth the trouble.
Point seems obvious to me. Your enemy holds terrain with defensive advantages, like a built up area. Just gas them and they're dead. No need to send your own guys to root them out, exposing themselves to danger.
Plus the terror component: resist us and this will happen to you.
Two other components: you've been waging a war for years, without a successful resolution in sight. Your troops might be getting antsy that they are expected to go all out while leadership is holding back. Also, there could be political pressure on Assad to do something differently in order to give confidence that a successful resolution can be brought.
Other possibilities: this was a rouge commander, or chemical weapons never were actually used.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 21, 2013, 06:49:51 PM
I checked CNN and the story wasn't a headline (it was off to the side a bit).
I checked Fox News, and it was a somewhat buried story with an Obama oriented headline.
Even the BBC didn't have it as the lead (that was Bradley Manning), but at least gave it second billing.
Yahoo news has it on top.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 21, 2013, 05:35:55 PM
Send in the carriers! :mad:
Euros turn. Oh, wait their navies are a joke.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2013, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:04:40 PM
We should've always supported Ba'athism back in the day. But noooo, smelled too much like communism.
It looked good on paper. Sadly it mutated into something quite nasty.
Hindsight's always 20/20, but when the options are Islamic Revolutionary Republics sponsored by Tehran's IRG/Hezbollah franchises and Saudi-sponsored Wahabbist/AQ extremism, secular albeit tribalist Ba'athism doesn't seem so unattractive.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Assad gets +2 die roll modifier for 3 turns.
Column shifts. Dont you know nothing about chemical weapons. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on August 21, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Assad gets +2 die roll modifier for 3 turns.
Column shifts. Dont you know nothing about chemical weapons. :P
:lol: No shit. Nothing like a lil' boost for the 3rd Shock in Turn 5. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2013, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:04:40 PM
We should've always supported Ba'athism back in the day. But noooo, smelled too much like communism.
It looked good on paper. Sadly it mutated into something quite nasty.
Hindsight's always 20/20, but when the options are Islamic Revolutionary Republics sponsored by Tehran's IRG/Hezbollah franchises and Saudi-sponsored Wahabbist/AQ extremism, secular albeit tribalist Ba'athism doesn't seem so unattractive.
Well, in retrospect, just looked at from the standpoint of our own interests, helping the Europeans keep their colonial empires instead of largely dismantling them in the quarter century after WWII would have been the best bet. Except, of course, for the fact that by 1945 they weren't really able to keep ahold of them, and we would have had to do the bulk of the heavy lifting anyway.
Even countries that didn't suffer during WWII, like Portugal weren't able to keep their colonial empires. Decolonization was inevitable. The war just helped it along.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 21, 2013, 07:18:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Assad gets +2 die roll modifier for 3 turns.
Column shifts. Dont you know nothing about chemical weapons. :P
Excuse me for not remembering rules. :blurgh:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2013, 05:37:42 PM
Go Bashir! :yeah:
You get a pass, since you just mistakenly rooted for a genetically-engineered superman.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9c%2FJulianBashir.jpg%2F250px-JulianBashir.jpg&hash=b8b0924c739e2f4e50ec5e422b896f2a83b95d84)
Khan plus subtlety minus William Shatner:
Go Bashir! :yeah:
Nerd.
MINUS WILLIAM SHATNER. :angry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2013, 08:47:23 PM
Nerd.
I still like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8
Playlist of videos by Brown Moses who has an excellent blog on the Civil War.
NSFW & NOT SAFE FOR THE FAINT OF HEART
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUGrW-SjjbU&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4NORTjYmPoNCHn2vCByvYG&index=1
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
Even countries that didn't suffer during WWII, like Portugal weren't able to keep their colonial empires. Decolonization was inevitable. The war just helped it along.
With the Soviet Union, Red China or even the US supporting the insurgencies, decolonisation was inevitable indeed.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 22, 2013, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
Even countries that didn't suffer during WWII, like Portugal weren't able to keep their colonial empires. Decolonization was inevitable. The war just helped it along.
With the Soviet Union, Red China or even the US supporting the insurgencies, decolonisation was inevitable indeed.
What if they'd used chemical weapons?
I just used a dutch oven.
Viva la France! :frog:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/22/20129755-reaction-with-force-needed-if-syria-chemical-attack-verified-france-says?lite
QuoteFrench Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius urged Syrian President Bashar Assad to allow an immediate and transparent U.N. investigation of the incident, which some activists and rebel fighters claim killed 1,200 people.
The Syrian government denies using chemical weapons, but new images are being held up by Syrian rebels as evidence of what could be the worst chemical weapons attack anywhere since Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in 1988. NBC's Richard Engel reports.
He told French broadcaster BFMTV that "there would have to be a reaction with force from the international community" if Assad force's gassed civilians.
However, Fabius added: "But there is no question of sending troops on the ground."
He said that if the United Nations Security Council could not make a decision, one would have to be taken "in other ways," although he did not elaborate on what those might be.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also said Thursday that "all red lines" had been crossed in Syria and criticized international inaction.
"All red lines have been crossed but still the U.N. Security Council has not even been able to take a decision. This is a responsibility for the sides who still set these red lines and for all of us," Davutoglu told reporters in Berlin.
What a fuckign mess.
Even if I operate under the assumption that this is a red line, and Syria has crossed, and the RotW MUST take action....what fucking action do we take?
I can't imagine what we should do that I could be convinced would have even a reasonable chance of resulting in some improved state of affairs.
Take out the regime? To be replaced by whom?
The Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria, nestled right next to the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iraq.
What a lovely picture that will paint.
QuoteTurkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also said Thursday that "all red lines" had been crossed in Syria and criticized international inaction.
"All red lines have been crossed but still the U.N. Security Council has not even been able to take a decision. This is a responsibility for the sides who still set these red lines and for all of us," Davutoglu told reporters in Berlin.
Turkey is right there. I am all for them going in and kicking ass and taking over responsibility for transitioning Syria to a functioning democratic state.
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2013, 06:56:03 PM
I hope Assad wins. :)
I hope Assad is executed for treason by the Neo-Ottoman Empire.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2013, 06:56:03 PM
I hope Assad wins. :)
I hope Assad is executed for treason by the Neo-Byzantine Empire.
Remember what this forum is about.
I'm in favor of France invading Syria. We can provide transport.
Nuke from orbit?
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2013, 10:38:38 AM
I'm in favor of France invading Syria. We can provide transport.
ZOMG LEADING FROM BEHIND
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 10:05:38 AM
The Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria, nestled right next to the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iraq.
That is what we have now.
Assad is a puppet of the Ayatollahs and maintains what power he has on the sufferance of their Hezbollah cat's paw.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2013, 06:56:03 PM
I hope Assad wins. :)
I hope Assad is executed for treason by the Neo-Ottoman Empire.
I don't care what happens to the guy after he wins. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 22, 2013, 10:38:38 AM
I'm in favor of France invading Syria. We can provide transport.
ZOMG LEADING FROM BEHIND
IN THE REAR WITH THE GEAR
The French did really well against those rebels in Mali, so no reason to think they cannot defeat Assad's army. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Hindsight's always 20/20, but when the options are Islamic Revolutionary Republics sponsored by Tehran's IRG/Hezbollah franchises and Saudi-sponsored Wahabbist/AQ extremism, secular albeit tribalist Ba'athism doesn't seem so unattractive.
:yes: I have to say that all those Youtube videos with Allahu Akbar swayed me. They kind of made me think of what would happen once Assad got a knife in his pooper. As bad as pieces of shit of like Assad are, as long as they're not total unpredictable nuts like Saddam, the alternatives are worse and even more of a dead end. I think the worst mistake of our policy over the last couple of decades was undermining the secular butchers instead of Saudi brain washers.
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Hindsight's always 20/20, but when the options are Islamic Revolutionary Republics sponsored by Tehran's IRG/Hezbollah franchises and Saudi-sponsored Wahabbist/AQ extremism, secular albeit tribalist Ba'athism doesn't seem so unattractive.
:yes: I have to say that all those Youtube videos with Allahu Akbar swayed me. They kind of made me think of what would happen once Assad got a knife in his pooper. As bad as pieces of shit of like Assad are, as long as they're not total unpredictable nuts like Saddam, the alternatives are worse and even more of a dead end. I think the worst mistake of our policy over the last couple of decades was undermining the secular butchers instead of Saudi brain washers.
I would argue that Saddam post-GW1 was about as predictable as they get.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:03:30 AM
What a fuckign mess.
Even if I operate under the assumption that this is a red line, and Syria has crossed, and the RotW MUST take action....what fucking action do we take?
I can't imagine what we should do that I could be convinced would have even a reasonable chance of resulting in some improved state of affairs.
Take out the regime? To be replaced by whom?
It appears that the Eqyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is looking for a new home....
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2013, 11:45:03 AM
The French did really well against those rebels in Mali, so no reason to think they cannot defeat Assad's army. :)
I know you are saying something assholish/sarcastic here because you used a smilie but since there is nothing unfactual about what you are saying I am confused :hmm: :frog:
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 21, 2013, 06:56:03 PM
I hope Assad wins. :)
I hope Assad is executed for treason by the Neo-Ottoman Empire.
I hope Bill in Sinton is declared president of Texas.
Is Bill still alive? I haven't see anything from him crossposted on ShaggyBevo in a long time, including last season.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 22, 2013, 01:04:03 PM
Is Bill still alive? I haven't see anything from him crossposted on ShaggyBevo in a long time, including last season.
He was a pretty old guy but if he is alive I am sure we will get a classic Bill post next week urging us not to look past New Mexico State. The team cannot play well unless the fans are ready to get out there and give their all.
I'll definitely be applying maximum focusness to my watchespn/watchlhn stream. I have to be in the DFW area for a damn wedding on kickoff weekend. Horrible. :mad:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/sports/2013/04/16/texas-quidditch-claims-world-cup-title#comment-969888786
He's a meme. I don't know if he'll ever die, because people will be posting as him forever.
There it is. The dumbest sport ever. If they got rid of the broomstick, there might be something to it, although I don't know the rules and such.
E: The UCLA and Texas players broomsticks appear to be identical. Are there standardized quidditch broomsticks????
Would be cool if the French swooped in, killed everybody and left the Druze in charge.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 22, 2013, 01:41:34 PM
Would be cool if the French swooped in, killed everybody and left the Druze in charge.
Wow, you must really not like Quidditch.
:lol:
:lol:
Last Bill in Sinton post on BurntOrangeFanZone:
Jun 28th 2013.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Hindsight's always 20/20, but when the options are Islamic Revolutionary Republics sponsored by Tehran's IRG/Hezbollah franchises and Saudi-sponsored Wahabbist/AQ extremism, secular albeit tribalist Ba'athism doesn't seem so unattractive.
:yes: I have to say that all those Youtube videos with Allahu Akbar swayed me. They kind of made me think of what would happen once Assad got a knife in his pooper. As bad as pieces of shit of like Assad are, as long as they're not total unpredictable nuts like Saddam, the alternatives are worse and even more of a dead end. I think the worst mistake of our policy over the last couple of decades was undermining the secular butchers instead of Saudi brain washers.
I would argue that Saddam post-GW1 was about as predictable as they get.
Assad is not like that. He is in Iran's pocket. He is only predictable in the sense that it is predictable that he will further the interests of the Islamic Republic. The Gulf Arabs for all their faults are materially better.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:10:04 AM
Turkey is right there. I am all for them going in and kicking ass and taking over responsibility for transitioning Syria to a functioning democratic state.
The US couldn't manage that in Iraq. I think it's a big ask for a still developing country. Especially given that Syria's got even more sectarian problems.
I think the Turks have done all that can be expected in helping the rebels as they can, but also hosting over 500 000 refugees.
QuoteEven if I operate under the assumption that this is a red line, and Syria has crossed, and the RotW MUST take action....what fucking action do we take?
Well we need to find out if chemical weapons were used and who by first of all. If so then I'd hope we could devise some limited response targeting their chemical weapons capability and the command structure within the regime.
QuoteTake out the regime? To be replaced by whom?
I don't think the regime would be replaced by anyone. At the moment I think Syria would continue its civil war and continue its collapse into anarchy and warlordism. I mean nothing I've read has suggested there's a coherent rebel group anywhere near taking charge of the other rebels, far less the rest of the country.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:46:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Hindsight's always 20/20, but when the options are Islamic Revolutionary Republics sponsored by Tehran's IRG/Hezbollah franchises and Saudi-sponsored Wahabbist/AQ extremism, secular albeit tribalist Ba'athism doesn't seem so unattractive.
:yes: I have to say that all those Youtube videos with Allahu Akbar swayed me. They kind of made me think of what would happen once Assad got a knife in his pooper. As bad as pieces of shit of like Assad are, as long as they're not total unpredictable nuts like Saddam, the alternatives are worse and even more of a dead end. I think the worst mistake of our policy over the last couple of decades was undermining the secular butchers instead of Saudi brain washers.
I would argue that Saddam post-GW1 was about as predictable as they get.
Assad is not like that. He is in Iran's pocket. He is only predictable in the sense that it is predictable that he will further the interests of the Islamic Republic. The Gulf Arabs for all their faults are materially better.
I wasn't arguing that about Assad, but DG's contention that Saddam Hussein was unpredictable.
Lawyers.
US government estimates 1,000 to 1,800 killed.
I think that when the situation gets to this point the US should lay the hammer down, even if it means the country will collapse, if only to show that this kind of savegery will not be tolerated by the civilized world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/us-talks-syria-chemical-weapons-use-allegations
QuoteWashington is split over how to respond to the latest attack, which it believes may have killed between 1,000 and 1,800 people.
Don't ever change, fellas.
QuoteThe Russians and the Chinese are blunting American efforts to reinforce the powers of U.N. chemical weapons inspectors. FP's Colum Lynch, writing on The Cable: "Seizing on rebel claims that Syrian authorities massacred hundreds of civilians by firing chemically-laced rockets onto a Damascus suburb, the United States joined Britain and France in calling for an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council to rally international support for an investigation into the incident. The three western powers also wrote a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon, signed by 32 other governments, calling for an urgent investigation. But the efforts failed to result in anything other than a tepid statement from the Security Council thanks to some final edits by the Russians and Chinese. The Obama administration's goal was to have a U.N. chemical weapons team, which was already in Syria to investigate other chemical weapons allegations, launch a probe into the new allegations. That team, headed by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, arrived in Damascus on Sunday. 'The United States, which was represented by the second highest ranking American official at the United Nations, Ambassador Rosemary Di Carlo, circulated a draft resolution, which was obtained by Foreign Policy, that called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon to 'urgently take the steps necessary for today's attack to be investigated by the U.N. mission on the ground.' But it also would have applied pressure on Syrian President Bashar al Assad to grant the inspectors greater latitude."
Shocking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 07:56:37 PM
I wasn't arguing that about Assad, but DG's contention that Saddam Hussein was unpredictable.
Lawyers.
It wasn't directed at you personally. Don't be so sensitive. :D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 07:59:14 PM
I think that when the situation gets to this point the US should lay the hammer down, even if it means the country will collapse, if only to show that this kind of savegery will not be tolerated by the civilized world.
I agree. Nothing will better show our commitment against "savegery" and to civilization than to cause a country to collapse.
And we certainly have not made enough "shows" like this in recent years.
nuke it from orbit it is the only way to be sure
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 07:59:14 PM
US government estimates 1,000 to 1,800 killed.
I think that when the situation gets to this point the US should lay the hammer down, even if it means the country will collapse, if only to show that this kind of savegery will not be tolerated by the civilized world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/us-talks-syria-chemical-weapons-use-allegations
QuoteWashington is split over how to respond to the latest attack, which it believes may have killed between 1,000 and 1,800 people.
this is not even on the same scale as the savagery in Rwanda, where no hammers were laid down.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 23, 2013, 12:33:26 PM
this is not even on the same scale as the savagery in Rwanda, where no hammers were laid down.
That sure pissed Nick Nolte the hell off.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2013, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:04:40 PM
We should've always supported Ba'athism back in the day. But noooo, smelled too much like communism.
It looked good on paper. Sadly it mutated into something quite nasty.
Nastier than Sharia bullshit?
No.
Quote from: fhdz on August 23, 2013, 01:40:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2013, 07:09:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:04:40 PM
We should've always supported Ba'athism back in the day. But noooo, smelled too much like communism.
It looked good on paper. Sadly it mutated into something quite nasty.
Nastier than Sharia bullshit?
No.
It got nasty before Islamism had a chance to. See: hindsight, 20/20
Quote from: derspiess on August 23, 2013, 02:15:13 PM
It got nasty before Islamism had a chance to. See: hindsight, 20/20
So it was no different than any other dictatorship. Whoopdefuckingdo.
Only way we could have made kissy face with Baathists is if we had thrown our Jews under the bus.
Doing anything doesn't predictably help the United States at all. I see no play here. Any action we take is unlikely to help the United States. Doing nothing also ultimately does nothing to help the United States, but it also costs nothing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2013, 03:42:42 PM
Doing anything doesn't predictably help the United States at all. I see no play here. Any action we take is unlikely to help the United States. Doing nothing also ultimately does nothing to help the United States, but it also costs nothing.
Well, doing something helps put teeth into things we say. Setting a red line, and then going "Ugh, I didn't think you would have balls to actually do it. Asshole." when it's crossed doesn't help our reputation.
Well we are in complete agreement there DGuller. But as an Obama-skeptic I don't really think the international community takes America that seriously now. We've had so many shifts, resets, red lines etc that no one really thinks twice when acting "what will America do?" Obama is really popular here because he talks pretty and then doesn't do much of anything, but in the field of foreign relations shockingly other world leaders actually mostly react to what you actually do and not what you say you'll do or how well you can portray something as a "teachable moment."
Ultimately though, if one draws a line in the sand unwisely is it then wise to fight someone over crossing it? Or maybe once you've recognized the folly of drawing that line in the first place your next decision when it is crossed should be made based on what is in your best interests and not the childish desire to defend a line you never should have drawn in the first place?
Likely DGuller seeks the downfall of America, and argues unwise action for this purpose.
nuke.from orbit.only way.be sure
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2013, 04:25:17 PM
Ultimately though, if one draws a line in the sand unwisely is it then wise to fight someone over crossing it? Or maybe once you've recognized the folly of drawing that line in the first place your next decision when it is crossed should be made based on what is in your best interests and not the childish desire to defend a line you never should have drawn in the first place?
Our enemies need to know that our lines are our lines, even if when they were drawn while we were in drunken stupor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2013, 02:32:31 PM
Only way we could have made kissy face with Baathists is if we had thrown our Jews under the bus.
Nonsense. We made kissy face with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Shah. No Jews needed to be thrown under buses. Hell, Egypt and Syria were the same country for a short period of time.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2013, 07:42:20 PM
Nonsense. We made kissy face with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Shah. No Jews needed to be thrown under buses. Hell, Egypt and Syria were the same country for a short period of time.
We made kissy face with Egypt and Jordan after they had signed peace treaties with Israel. IINM Iran under the Shah recognized Israel early on and certainly never engaged in hostilities with her. By the time we were making kissy face with Saudi Arabia she had ceased participation in Arab-Israeli wars. I think SA sent a mech battalion to fight in 67 and nothing in 73, if the boys at SPI knew what they were talking about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2013, 07:48:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2013, 07:42:20 PM
Nonsense. We made kissy face with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Shah. No Jews needed to be thrown under buses. Hell, Egypt and Syria were the same country for a short period of time.
We made kissy face with Egypt and Jordan after they had signed peace treaties with Israel. IINM Iran under the Shah recognized Israel early on and certainly never engaged in hostilities with her. By the time we were making kissy face with Saudi Arabia she had ceased participation in Arab-Israeli wars. I think SA sent a mech battalion to fight in 67 and nothing in 73, if the boys at SPI knew what they were talking about.
We were making Kissy faces with Saudis before there was an Israel. Who do you think built those oil wells? And Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel because we were pressuring them. The problem is not the Baathists but the Soviets in that time period who loved to fuck things up for us. The golden opportunity for max kissy faceness is post Gulf War I. I believe the Syrians sent a sizable force to fight with the coalition. I don't know if they saw any action, but it reflects the thinking of the Syrian government.
We've now reached our max limit on using the term "kissy face" in this thread.
Also the US has been close to Jordan since Ike. It was another case of Britain leaving and the US stepping in.
The only problem from getting closer with Syria (and even closer with Iraq) back in the day would've been, as considered substantial Soviet states, giving them the impression that they could operate with a little more freedom without any repercussions--but as closed, oppressive regimes I think we could've dodged that. It would've really fucked up our brand marketing anyway, but who are we kidding? We've worked with worse than Poppa Assad.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2013, 07:56:10 PM
We were making Kissy faces with Saudis before there was an Israel. Who do you think built those oil wells? And Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel because we were pressuring them. The problem is not the Baathists but the Soviets in that time period who loved to fuck things up for us. The golden opportunity for max kissy faceness is post Gulf War I. I believe the Syrians sent a sizable force to fight with the coalition. I don't know if they saw any action, but it reflects the thinking of the Syrian government.
The quid pro quo for Syrian participation in GWI was a green light on their occupation of the Baaka (sp?) Valley.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Syria has never changed its negotiating stance that Israeli withdrawal from the Golan is a necessary precondition for any discussion.
Quote from: The Brain on August 23, 2013, 04:37:02 PM
Likely DGuller seeks the downfall of America, and argues unwise action for this purpose.
He probably wants us to make kissy face with Putin.
Oh yeah:
KISSYFACEKISSYFACEKISSYFACE
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2013, 04:25:17 PM
Ultimately though, if one draws a line in the sand unwisely is it then wise to fight someone over crossing it? Or maybe once you've recognized the folly of drawing that line in the first place your next decision when it is crossed should be made based on what is in your best interests and not the childish desire to defend a line you never should have drawn in the first place?
the advantage of sand is that things written in it are easily erased. Writing in stone, now that's a different ballpark
I peed a line in the snow once. It disappeared with the coming of the spring rains.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2013, 02:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2013, 07:56:10 PM
We were making Kissy faces with Saudis before there was an Israel. Who do you think built those oil wells? And Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel because we were pressuring them. The problem is not the Baathists but the Soviets in that time period who loved to fuck things up for us. The golden opportunity for max kissy faceness is post Gulf War I. I believe the Syrians sent a sizable force to fight with the coalition. I don't know if they saw any action, but it reflects the thinking of the Syrian government.
The quid pro quo for Syrian participation in GWI was a green light on their occupation of the Baaka (sp?) Valley.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Syria has never changed its negotiating stance that Israeli withdrawal from the Golan is a necessary precondition for any discussion.
You can't expect everything to happen at once. Both Bush and Clinton had some success bringing the Syrians to the table. The Second Gulf War really alienated the Syrians. After 9-11 the Syrians were actually helpful in counter terrorism efforts.
The Madrid conference seems to be an example of Syrian-Israeli talks with out the precondition of the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991
They didn't amount to much, but there were talks.
More evidence is coming out every day. Looks like Obama is going to act.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/24/doctors_without_borders_reports_on_a_possible_use_of_chemical_weapons_in.html
Quote
Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, says three hospitals it coordinates and supports in Syria's Damascus region received approximately 3,600 patients "displaying neurotoxic symptions" within the span of three hours on Wednesday, August 21. Of that total, 355 have died. MSF points out that its staff members have not been able to access the facilities to corroborate the information, but the group highlights that since last year it has "built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points" in the region.
"MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," Dr Bart Janssens, MSF director of operations, said in a news release issued by the Paris-based organization. "However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."
Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is based in England, increased its estimated death toll for Wednesday's alleged chemical attack to 322, including 54 children...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/barack_obama_s_logic_for_bombing_syria_the_united_states_will_seek_to_put.html
Quote
It seems likely that President Obama will bomb Syria sometime in the coming weeks.
His top civilian and military advisers are meeting in the White House on Saturday to discuss options. American warships are heading toward the area; those already there, at least one of which had been scheduled for a port call, are standing by. Most telling perhaps is a story in the New York Times, noting that Obama's national-security aides are studying the 1999 air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for action in Syria.
In that conflict 14 years ago, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, an autonomous province of Serbia, were being massacred by Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. President Bill Clinton, after much reluctance, decided to intervene, but couldn't get authorization from the U.N. Security Council, where Russia—Serbia's main ally—was certain to veto any resolution on the use of force. So Clinton turned to NATO, an appropriate instrument to deal with a crisis in the middle of Europe.
Advertisement
The parallels with Syria are obvious. In this case too, an American president, after much reluctance, seems to be considering the use of force but can't get authorization from the U.N. because of Russia's (and China's) certain veto. The pressures to act have swelled in recent days, with the growing evidence—gleaned not just from Syrian rebels but also from independent physicians' groups and U.S. intelligence—that Assad's forces have used chemical weapons, killing more than 1,000 civilians.
But where can Obama turn for the legitimacy of a multinational alliance? Nobody has yet said, but a possible answer is, once again, NATO—this time led perhaps by Turkey, the alliance's easternmost member, whose leaders are very concerned by the growing death toll and instability in Syria just across their southern border.
The weapons that NATO used—and, more important, did not use—in Kosovo are also likely to appeal to President Obama. Clinton was insistent that no U.S. ground troops be sent to aid the Albanians and told his commanders to keep from losing a single American in the fight, if possible.
And so, the Kosovo campaign was, from America's vantage, strictly an air war. (Just two U.S. servicemen were killed, and not in battle but in an Apache helicopter that crashed during an exercise.) The air war went on for what seemed, at the time, an eternity—78 days. More than 1,000 NATO planes (including the first Predator drones) flew a total of 38,000 combat sorties. The bombs—most of them dropped from altitudes of 10,000 feet and higher, to avoid air-defense batteries—seemed to have no effect on Milosevic's actions until the final days of the campaign, and so NATO's commanders kept adjusting and expanding the target list, which ranged from military bases, factories, and electrical power plants to individual Serbian tanks on the battlefield.
Bad intelligence led to a few horrific mistakes: the bombing of an Albanian caravan, which was confused with a Serbian convoy, and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which was thought to be a military relay station. In all, "collateral damage" over the 78 days killed an estimated 1,200 civilians
In the end, though, the war was won. The strategic goals were to stop the fighting, force Milosevic to pull back his army, restore Kosovo as an autonomous Albanian enclave, and insert NATO troops—30,000 of them—as peacekeepers. All the goals were met.
During and after the war, many Republicans and some retired U.S. military officers lambasted Clinton for relying so heavily on NATO. They called it a war "by committee" and claimed that it could have been won much more quickly had America gone it alone. But Gen. Wesley Clark, who was NATO chief at the time, later argued in his book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo and the Future of Combat, that the multilateral approach was necessary for two reasons: to give the war legitimacy (especially given the lack of a U.N. resolution) and to counter whatever resistance the Russians might muster (in the end, Milosevic surrendered when he realized that, despite earlier promises, Moscow was not coming to his rescue).
Let's say that Obama agrees that NATO could be the key force of an air campaign in Syria—and that enough NATO members agree to go along. (In Kosovo, every member of the alliance, except Greece, played some kind of role.) What would be the war's objectives?
This is the crucial question of any military intervention. It should be asked, and answered, before a decision is made to intervene—along with a calculation of how much effort might be needed to accomplish those objectives and whether the cost is worth the benefit.
A few things are clear from Obama's record as commander-in-chief: He tends to resist the use of military force. When he sees it as unavoidable, he tends to steer clear of grandiose objectives, and he demands that allied nations come along, even take the lead, especially if their interests in the conflict outweigh ours.
If Obama does use force in Syria, he will do so because of clear evidence that Assad's regime has killed lots of civilians with chemical weapons. Two considerations will likely drive his decision, if it comes to that. First, he has drawn a "red line" on this issue, publicly, at least five times in the last year, and failure to follow through—especially after the latest revelations—would send confusing signals, at best, about U.S. resolve and credibility. Second, failure to respond would erode, perhaps obliterate, the taboo that the international community has placed on chemical weapons (especially nerve gas) since the end of World War I. I suspect that this factor may be more pertinent to Obama, who takes the issue of international norms very seriously.
So the No. 1 objective of a U.S. air campaign against Syria would be the seemingly limited one of deterring or preventing Assad's regime from using chemical weapons again. However, Obama's top generals and intelligence officers would likely tell him that they can't do much to fulfill this mission. They probably don't know where the remaining chemical stockpile is located, so they wouldn't be able to destroy it. And the notion of using military force to deter some future action is a bit vague: It's unclear whether it would have any effect on Assad. Obama would also have to specify the additional damage he'd inflict if Assad ignored the message, and he'd have to be reasonably sure ahead of time that that damage would be enough to deter him from taking the dare.
A more extravagant, but possibly more feasible, target of an air strike might be Assad's regime itself—with the objective of destroying it or at least severely weakening it.
In an Aug. 5 letter to Congress, made public just this past week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a comment pertinent to this point. He said that if Assad's regime were to topple, none of the myriad Syrian rebel factions are currently in a position to fill the power vacuum. Nor, if any of these factions did come to power, do they seem inclined to promote U.S. interests. For that reason, he expressed skepticism about the good of taking the side of a particular rebel faction or, presumably, sending its fighters more arms.
However, Dempsey also said in this letter that U.S. military intervention could tip the balance against Assad in the Syrian civil war—by, among other things, destroying his military assets and infrastructure as well as reducing the flow of arms from Iran, Russia, and others.
President Obama seemed on the same page when he said, during an interview aired this weekend on CNN, that while the Syrian situation is "troublesome," his job as president is "to think through what we do from the perspective of ... national interests." He added, "Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."
But Obama also said that if the evidence clearly shows that Assad has used chemical weapons "on a large scale," that would "start getting to some core national interests ... in terms of ... making sure that weapons or mass destruction are not proliferating as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region."
This marked the first time that Obama has mentioned "core national interests" in the context of Syria. It may signal rising pressures to do something—and, again, Kosovo, where Clinton switched his views on intervention dramatically, serves as an intriguing parallel.
In his letter, Gen. Dempsey wrote, "We can destroy the Syrian air force" but he also warned that doing so could "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."
That would be the risk, and it's the sort of risk that Obama is generally inclined to avoid. There have been some exceptions, most notably in Libya, where he concluded that the important thing was to get rid of Qaddafi and to let those on the ground—aided to some extent by the United States but more by allies with bigger stakes in the region—settle the aftermath.
This may be the position he takes in Syria, in consultation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other interested parties, which would play some role along with the NATO command. If he decides to use force, it's the only position he could reasonably take. Given the threat, the humanitarian crisis, America's standing in the region, and the importance of preserving international norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, the best option might be to destroy huge chunks of the Syrian military, throw Assad's regime off balance, and let those on the ground settle the aftermath. Maybe this would finally compel Assad to negotiate seriously; maybe it would compel the Russians to backpedal on their support (as NATO's campaign in Kosovo compelled them to soften their support for Milosevic). Or maybe it would just sire chaos and violence. But there's plenty of both now, and there might be less—a road to some sort of settlement might be easier to plow—if Assad were severely weakened or no longer around.
This doesn't make sense to me. Assad was gaining the upper hand, and the didn't some UN inspectors arrived to the country shortly before this? Only rebels could profit from this, so my money is on the Rebs doing the gassing.
Unlikely, my understanding is the United States has some form of video monitoring (not sure if that means plane based or from nearby cameras or satellite) that pretty convincingly shows it was the regime that carried out the attack. Now, that just shows there was an attack carried out by the regime, it does not demonstrate chemical weapons were used.
My understanding is after the last gas attacks the United States, France, and the UK have worked to create networks of ground based agents who are "on the ready" to rush to potential chemical attacks sites and collect samples and then give them to their handlers who ship them to labs. The three countries adopted a protocol where they will each do their own independent testing on their own samples, and then share the results. If all three countries come out of that with positive results it's really basically beyond any doubt that Assad used chemical weapons.
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2013, 07:43:46 AM
This doesn't make sense to me. Assad was gaining the upper hand, and the didn't some UN inspectors arrived to the country shortly before this? Only rebels could profit from this, so my money is on the Rebs doing the gassing.
This wasn't one shell with nerve agent, this was a sustained bombardment from an artillery battery loaded with nerve gas.
Quote from: citizen k on August 25, 2013, 01:19:20 PM
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2013, 07:43:46 AM
This doesn't make sense to me. Assad was gaining the upper hand, and the didn't some UN inspectors arrived to the country shortly before this? Only rebels could profit from this, so my money is on the Rebs doing the gassing.
This wasn't one shell with nerve agent, this was a sustained bombardment from an artillery battery loaded with nerve gas.
Assad is basically calling the west's bluff and making it clear to the insurgents that now is the time to run away before he kills every last one of them.
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2013, 07:43:46 AM
This doesn't make sense to me. Assad was gaining the upper hand, and the didn't some UN inspectors arrived to the country shortly before this? Only rebels could profit from this, so my money is on the Rebs doing the gassing.
How was he gaining the upper hand? From what I've read it was brutal, bloody stalemate. He wasn't going to be toppled, but he wasn't winning control.
Also there's no evidence it was the rebels. Except for what Russia and Assad are suggesting, which is implausible.
There's an oddity in our attitude here though - see Tim's savagery comment. The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people. HRW and AI have collected reports of systematic rape, torture and murder of children as a way of terrorising families and communities. But if that happens through conventional means, with a low-ish daily fatality rate it's not worth intervening on moral grounds. But suddenly it is? It's strange and I'm not sure it's a good way of thinking about it.
Quote from: Viking on August 25, 2013, 04:17:55 PMAssad is basically calling the west's bluff and making it clear to the insurgents that now is the time to run away before he kills every last one of them.
Yep, either the Alawites win by carving out their own enclave or they get their throats slit by the Sunnis.
Tamas is just doing the usual Eastern European conspiracy thing, that's all. What he doesn't understand is that guys like Assad will do anything to win, doesn't care how it's done and is totally insulated to the concept of criticism or international condemnation.
According to the mirror, Obama has Airstrip One on board for a strike. I assume PM Hollandaise is on board too. His poll numbers need it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2013, 04:47:52 PM
According to the mirror, Obama has Airstrip One on board for a strike. I assume PM Hollandaise is on board too. His poll numbers need it.
He's actually the President of France, not the Prime Minister. Ayrault is the PM.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
How was he gaining the upper hand? From what I've read it was brutal, bloody stalemate. He wasn't going to be toppled, but he wasn't winning control.
Economist said things were going his way in the western Metro corridor, due in large part to the brave lads of the Shiite International Brigades.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 25, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2013, 04:47:52 PM
According to the mirror, Obama has Airstrip One on board for a strike. I assume PM Hollandaise is on board too. His poll numbers need it.
He's actually the President of France, not the Prime Minister. Ayrault is the PM.
Lulz, the landed French nobleman just got LE PWN3D.
:blush:
We know how the UK's and France's contribution will be. The Brits will fire off 4 tomahawks, act like they won the war and then complain about being over stretched. France? Who the fuck knows. But they will act like they won the war and complain about not being in charge.
UK and France's contribution will be bupkus cuz that's what we're going to do.
Why do anything? You don't want the rebels to win. It would be nice if Assad dropped dead, maybe then you could get the factions to agree on a some kind of peace.
MAH WAR BONER
To be serious, I'd bet 6quatloos that a small cruise missile strike, followed by John McCain having an erection lasting more than 4 hours.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2013, 05:38:55 PM
To be serious, I'd bet 6quatloos that a small cruise missile strike, followed by John McCain having an erection lasting more than 4 hours.
Deal
I'd hope for nothing more than a relatively surgical strike.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2013, 05:43:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2013, 05:38:55 PM
To be serious, I'd bet 6quatloos that a small cruise missile strike, followed by John McCain having an erection lasting more than 4 hours.
Deal
Okay. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 04:42:03 PM
Tamas is just doing the usual Eastern European conspiracy thing, that's all. What he doesn't understand is that guys like Assad will do anything to win, doesn't care how it's done and is totally insulated to the concept of criticism or international condemnation.
Would the rebels do anything to win? :hmm:
Don't be That Guy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 05:46:42 PM
I'd hope for nothing more than a relatively surgical strike.
Dropping thousands of scalpels from 30,000 ft would be kind of cool.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
How was he gaining the upper hand? From what I've read it was brutal, bloody stalemate. He wasn't going to be toppled, but he wasn't winning control.
Also there's no evidence it was the rebels. Except for what Russia and Assad are suggesting, which is implausible.
There's an oddity in our attitude here though - see Tim's savagery comment. The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people. HRW and AI have collected reports of systematic rape, torture and murder of children as a way of terrorising families and communities. But if that happens through conventional means, with a low-ish daily fatality rate it's not worth intervening on moral grounds. But suddenly it is? It's strange and I'm not sure it's a good way of thinking about it.
I'm not especially taking issue with what you've said, but I'm quoting as you raise a few interesting issues.
Yes lots have been killed by the regime, but I think by now all sides are getting expert at fighting a bloody civil war, which in part inevitably involves 'atrocities' against civilians and ethnic cleansing or more accurately causing people to flee for their lives.
A good example being the mass flight of Syrian Kurds over the border into Kurdistan over the last week, the authors of that were the Al-Nursa front and assort AQ affiliates.
Well the chemical weapons is someone's red-line and it feeds into the investment people have put into WMD over the last dozen years. Other than that I guess it's the alleged scale of this 'atrocity' against civilians, that is causing governments to act or is giving them the excuse to act against Assad.
As seem fairly certain the Syrian government has been using chemical weapons on a limited scale against rebel fighters for some months now.
What I'm not clear about is, whether it's actually 'illegal' to use them in a civil war, given Syrian government isn't a signatory of the chemical weapons convention. Which might in some part explain the 'West' reluctance to get involved.
Now that a large number of civilians have been killed in an in discriminate way, I think that invokes international humanitarian law and some see it as a game changer.
My prediction is the US/'coalition of the willing' act within the next 7-10days by quite extensively bombing of CBW assets and other government structures, whilst imposing limited no-fly zone along Jordanian and Turkish borders, which whilst designated to help civilians and refugees, will be of most use in giving rebels secure safe havens.
I think that'll be the extent of US intervention, which will be more than most of you expect.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2013, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 05:46:42 PM
I'd hope for nothing more than a relatively surgical strike.
Dropping thousands of scalpels from 30,000 ft would be kind of cool.
They'd likely fall handle-down.
We could drop a bunch of surgeons instead. See which way they fall. Or do you guys write "chirurgeon" instead?
All political parties in Germany have come out to say they wouldn't support military actions in Syria. "The West shouldn't think that the problem of the Middle East can be solved by military force" is the general line. The conservatives have suggested taking in more Syrian Christian refugees.
There's federal elections in a few weeks, and military action is always highly unpopular in Germany, so everyone's playing it safe to not piss off voters.
Quote from: Syt on August 25, 2013, 11:05:54 PM
All political parties in Germany have come out to say they wouldn't support military actions in Syria.
Imagine that.
QuoteThere's federal elections in a few weeks, and military action is always highly unpopular in Germany, so everyone's playing it safe to not piss off voters.
And that's different from years without elections how, exactly?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 11:07:47 PMQuoteThere's federal elections in a few weeks, and military action is always highly unpopular in Germany, so everyone's playing it safe to not piss off voters.
And that's different from years without elections how, exactly?
Otherwise they might send a couple of planes (Kosovo) or a bunch of soldiers doing "reconstruction" and security training (Afghanistan).
You pussies. You fucking people never do anything in moderation. Please see: 20th century, entire goddamned history of
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 11:07:47 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 25, 2013, 11:05:54 PM
All political parties in Germany have come out to say they wouldn't support military actions in Syria.
Imagine that.
QuoteThere's federal elections in a few weeks, and military action is always highly unpopular in Germany, so everyone's playing it safe to not piss off voters.
And that's different from years without elections how, exactly?
Sometimes I wonder if the Federal Republic would have supported military action in Germany had the balloon gone up in the cold war.
Sure, it would've given them an excuse to go after the last 3 or 4 Jews left.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2013, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 05:46:42 PM
I'd hope for nothing more than a relatively surgical strike.
Dropping thousands of scalpels from 30,000 ft would be kind of cool.
Scalpelnado. :w00t:
Yeah this grand outrage of the press, taken over by Tim feels dishonest. Assad has been artyllering his own people for who knows how many months and nobody cared to act. It seemed like the western powers feel they missd the mark an now using this gas excuse to pretend they haven't and are actually intervening at JUST THE RIGHT TIME.
Quote from: Tamas on August 26, 2013, 05:32:54 AM
Yeah this grand outrage of the press, taken over by Tim feels dishonest. Assad has been artyllering his own people for who knows how many months and nobody cared to act. It seemed like the western powers feel they missd the mark an now using this gas excuse to pretend they haven't and are actually intervening at JUST THE RIGHT TIME.
Non-proliferation and opposition to the use of such weapons is an established international norm, not conventional weaponry. Silly person.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 11:44:12 PM
Sure, it would've given them an excuse to go after the last 3 or 4 Jews left.
Actually they might already be dead. Somebody (read Al-Qaeda) went and torched the residential/synagogue complex that the remaining 22 damascus jews were living in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 11:16:09 PM
You pussies. You fucking people never do anything in moderation. Please see: 20th century, entire goddamned history of
personally I prefer a passive Germany. When they get aggressive they become... Troublesome.
Now if the Sarin was made out of beet extract, tamas would be all for intervention.
Who could have ordered such a thing! :o
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/26/20192545-un-weapons-inspectors-car-deliberately-shot-at-multiple-times-by-snipers-in-syria?lite
QuoteA car carrying United Nations inspectors was shot at "multiple times" by snipers Monday as it headed to the scene of a suspected chemical weapons attack that allegedly killed hundreds of Syrians, the UN said.
In a statement, the spokesman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the vehicle had been forced to return to a government checkpoint after being "deliberately" targeted while driving in Damascus.
Quote from: HVC on August 26, 2013, 08:04:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 11:16:09 PM
You pussies. You fucking people never do anything in moderation. Please see: 20th century, entire goddamned history of
personally I prefer a passive Germany. When they get aggressive they become... Troublesome.
It would've been interesting to see the Warsaw Pact attack NATO, only to watch the Germans do the knee-jerk instinctive thing and invade France.
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2013, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2013, 11:44:12 PM
Sure, it would've given them an excuse to go after the last 3 or 4 Jews left.
Actually they might already be dead. Somebody (read Al-Qaeda) went and torched the residential/synagogue complex that the remaining 22 damascus jews were living in.
Seems like you guys have something in common. They want to eradicate only one less religion then you do!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 08:48:52 AM
It would've been interesting to see the Warsaw Pact attack NATO, only to watch the Germans do the knee-jerk instinctive thing and invade France.
It's a fighting retreat! :rolleyes:
:lol:
NOT RETREAT REDEPLOY MINE FUROR
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people.
that woudl be bizarre as the total count is about that number. Unless you're trying to say that the rebels haven't got rivers of blood on their hands.
The west needs to get it in its head that an Assad -sucky as it may be- is better than a bunch of islamotards in power. And islamotards in power is what we'll have if Assad falls.
Thinking otherwise is, imho, foolish. Criminally so even.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people.
that woudl be bizarre as the total count is about that number. Unless you're trying to say that the rebels haven't got rivers of blood on their hands.
The west needs to get it in its head that an Assad -sucky as it may be- is better than a bunch of islamotards in power. And islamotards in power is what we'll have if Assad falls.
Thinking otherwise is, imho, foolish. Criminally so even.
Those 100,000 wouldn't be dead if the regime hadn't escalated the situation from protest movement to armed rebellion.
Quote from: citizen k on August 26, 2013, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people.
that woudl be bizarre as the total count is about that number. Unless you're trying to say that the rebels haven't got rivers of blood on their hands.
The west needs to get it in its head that an Assad -sucky as it may be- is better than a bunch of islamotards in power. And islamotards in power is what we'll have if Assad falls.
Thinking otherwise is, imho, foolish. Criminally so even.
Those 100,000 wouldn't be dead if the regime hadn't escalated the situation from protest movement to armed rebellion.
blood under the bridge. We're now dealing with fundamentalists that are worse than the regime
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 26, 2013, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people.
that woudl be bizarre as the total count is about that number. Unless you're trying to say that the rebels haven't got rivers of blood on their hands.
The west needs to get it in its head that an Assad -sucky as it may be- is better than a bunch of islamotards in power. And islamotards in power is what we'll have if Assad falls.
Thinking otherwise is, imho, foolish. Criminally so even.
Those 100,000 wouldn't be dead if the regime hadn't escalated the situation from protest movement to armed rebellion.
blood under the bridge. We're now dealing with fundamentalists that are worse than the regime
:huh:
Assad's regime is not secular. He's being propped up by the Iranians and Hezbollah. Those two are about as bad as any other fundamentalists you can find.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2013, 02:09:49 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 26, 2013, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2013, 04:38:55 PM
The regime's so far killed around 100 000 people.
that woudl be bizarre as the total count is about that number. Unless you're trying to say that the rebels haven't got rivers of blood on their hands.
The west needs to get it in its head that an Assad -sucky as it may be- is better than a bunch of islamotards in power. And islamotards in power is what we'll have if Assad falls.
Thinking otherwise is, imho, foolish. Criminally so even.
Those 100,000 wouldn't be dead if the regime hadn't escalated the situation from protest movement to armed rebellion.
blood under the bridge. We're now dealing with fundamentalists that are worse than the regime
:huh:
Assad's regime is not secular. He's being propped up by the Iranians and Hezbollah. Those two are about as bad as any other fundamentalists you can find.
didn't claim he was secular but his regime seems miles above anything the salafist and brotherhood crap offers
we'll see after the salafist start culling the christians.
War it is
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/text-of-kerrys-statement-on-chemical-weapons-in-syria.html?_r=0
Full text
Quote
Well, for the last several days President Obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in Syria. And today I want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons.
What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable. And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.
The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict on Syria itself. And that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.
There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons, and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences. And there is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.
Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos -- the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the the human suffering that they lay out before us.
As a father, I can't get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget. Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass.
What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.
So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission -- these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria.
Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.
We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead.
Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up. At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki- moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgement that is already clear to the world.
I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate: immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story.
Instead, for five days the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systematically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons. In fact, the regime's belated decision to allow access is too late and is too late to be credible.
Today's reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators, together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods, only further weakens the regime's credibility. At President Obama's direction, I've spent many hours over the last few days on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. President Obama has also been in close touch with the leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.
But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.
Thank you.
Yeah, I have to reluctantly agree. This is not about trying to come up with a policy that has some chance of improving the situation in Syria anymore.
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
nothing learned since 1979 in other words.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
Yeah, I have to reluctantly agree. This is not about trying to come up with a policy that has some chance of improving the situation in Syria anymore.
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
I agree. That statement is actually the most logical, well-reasoned and compelling argument for war I have seen since.. I dunno, ww2?
The case for declaring war against Syria is much stronger than even the case against Iraq in Gulf war 1 back in 1991 in my opinion. And lets face it, gw1 was a pretty solid case too.
Assad is not going to make the al-Qaeda types go away; on the contrary, his brutality and Western hypocrisy in tolerating that brutality have helped al-Qaeda grow rapidly on the ground in Syria. The ordinary Sunni in Syria is not a radical Islamist terrorist, but when the only people that stand up to protect them from atrocities are radical Islamists, it should not be surprising that those types grow in influence. The policy to be adopted toward Syria IMO is obvious: he is a very bad guy who will stop at nothing, he is a key hinge point in the Iran-Hezbollah axis, he is our enemy and we (the West) should be against him. As to what that should entail, there is plenty of room for argument. But he is not the enemy of our enemy. He is the enemy of all breathing humans in his country who are not Alawite and who object to his iron fist.
I mean, if we are not ready to go to war over this, then what the hell is worth going to war over? This is pretty much as close as ww2-type-evil that you get..
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
nothing learned since 1979 in other words.
If Obama hadn't made the line in the sand remarks you might have a point. But whether the regime in Syria is better or worse is of considerably less importance than the ROTW respecting America. So while gassing his own people isn't the same level of provocation as overrunning our embassy and taking our people hostage, it's still something that needs to be dealt with.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
nothing learned since 1979 in other words.
Assad as has been mentioned is backed by the worst of the worst, there's little material difference to me between al-Qaeda backed groups and Hezbollah and Iran backed groups. Aside from 9/11, which was a spectacle more than anything, Iran is actually a far bigger threat to us than al-Qaeda will ever be. That being said, there still remains little viable option for the U.S. to do anything in Syria that will work to our benefit.
The line in the sand was stupid. The only logic I can find to support action in Syria is if we can do so in a way that undermines Russia's efforts. So that might mean supporting the Saudis, who have been trying to support the portion of the rebels who aren't Iran/Hezbollah/Russian backed nor al-Qaeda affiliated.
If we do attack I hope that we hit the Russian SAM equipment they sold Assad just to prove a point. I'd also hope that if we do commit to funding one side, we do so on the condition that if that side wins power they are required to expel Russia from its naval facility in Tartus.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
nothing learned since 1979 in other words.
This from the guy who hasn't learned anything since 1498.
Would be interesting to see Obama actually ask for a DOW.
Not really a good idea, but interesting.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
nothing learned since 1979 in other words.
Assad is in no way shape or form a creature of US foriegn policy. Syria has been the enemy of the US and the rest of the West for many decades. In short, you are channelling Marti with that analogy. :P
The Saudis have actually tried for years to flip Assad from being Iran/Hezbollah backed to being closer with them (and they were willing to funnel billions to his regime in exchange for that expanded influence--making Syria similar to Jordan in its relationship with uber-wealthy Saudi Arabia), but he rebuffed them at every attempt. They've now been working diligently to see Assad overthrown.
The Middle East is turning into an interesting region with Saudi Arabia actually being anchored in the region itself and having a State oil company worth upwards of $700bn they basically can write blank checks and are interested in having influence throughout the region...at the same time you can see Iran (aside from the disparity in oil wealth Iran is a larger and more powerful country than S.A. in most respects) with its fingers all over the Middle Eastern pie.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have been running a regional cold war at least since the end of the big Cold War, probably earlier.
I'm not sure which one is worse of the two. I know which one pissed us off big time, but from the standpoint of an alien dispassionately observing things from afar, I'd struggle to figure out who to root for.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 26, 2013, 03:59:29 PM
The line in the sand was stupid. The only logic I can find to support action in Syria is if we can do so in a way that undermines Russia's efforts. So that might mean supporting the Saudis, who have been trying to support the portion of the rebels who aren't Iran/Hezbollah/Russian backed nor al-Qaeda affiliated.
:hmm:
15 of 19.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 04:27:19 PM
I'm not sure which one is worse of the two. I know which one pissed us off big time, but from the standpoint of an alien dispassionately observing things from afar, I'd struggle to figure out who to root for.
Which one has killed the least Americans ? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 04:27:19 PM
I'm not sure which one is worse of the two. I know which one pissed us off big time, but from the standpoint of an alien dispassionately observing things from afar, I'd struggle to figure out who to root for.
I am pretty sure I would root for the one not actively sponsoring sending bombs into crowded markets in Israel.
I am at war boner DEFCON 2.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 04:27:19 PM
I'm not sure which one is worse of the two. I know which one pissed us off big time, but from the standpoint of an alien dispassionately observing things from afar, I'd struggle to figure out who to root for.
I am pretty sure I would root for the one not actively sponsoring sending bombs into crowded markets in Israel.
On the flip side, how many crowded markets elsewhere got bombed because of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabists?
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
Or are nearby carrier groups en route and about to unleash hell and surprise everybody except languish?
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
Or are nearby carrier groups en route and about to unleash hell and surprise everybody except languish?
As a seasoned armchair general, the shift in tone in Washington gives the game away. Cruise missile strikes are coming..
You know, if we had elected John McCain, we wouldn't be in this mess now!*
*We would have, instead, been in this mess years ago.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
Or are nearby carrier groups en route and about to unleash hell and surprise everybody except languish?
I don't really know about the rest of the net but based on the reporting at the Wall Street Journal and the actual comments coming out of the mouth of the Secretary of State President Obama has already committed to taking some action. If not, he's committed to use losing all credibility in the international sphere. The red line comment was dumb, but never explicitly stated by Obama himself (the administration did use the term, but then backed off on it), and we could have probably not acted. But you can't use the rhetoric we've used today and not act, to do so removes power from any words you use in the future, which creates a bad situation that degrades your ability to use such forms of diplomacy to prevent future uses of force.
I'm not sure how informed you are about the naval situation, but we have forces in the Mediterranean sufficient to launch cruise missile strikes against Syria and that is almost certainly what we will do. We don't want to risk downed pilots in Syria and well directed cruise missiles get the job done--which will most likely be a limited strike against chemical weapons facilities and potentially command and control facilities of the regime as a "punitive" measure.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
The rest of the net is distracted by Hanna Montana becoming an exotic dancer.
Specifically last reported the 6th Fleet has four destroyers capable of launching cruise missiles at Syria in the Mediterranean right now, additionally there are submarine launched cruise missiles that could come into play as well and I'm not readily aware of what sort of sub assets we have in the Med.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
Or are nearby carrier groups en route and about to unleash hell and surprise everybody except languish?
A lot of the News sites seem to have realized it. Just look at the front page of NBC, CNN international and Slate.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 26, 2013, 05:19:24 PM
I'm not readily aware of what sort of sub assets we have in the Med.
If you cant tell us the top secret locations of sub assets what good are you?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 26, 2013, 05:13:09 PMI don't really know about the rest of the net but based on the reporting at the Wall Street Journal and the actual comments coming out of the mouth of the Secretary of State President Obama has already committed to taking some action. If not, he's committed to use losing all credibility in the international sphere. The red line comment was dumb, but never explicitly stated by Obama himself (the administration did use the term, but then backed off on it), and we could have probably not acted. But you can't use the rhetoric we've used today and not act, to do so removes power from any words you use in the future, which creates a bad situation that degrades your ability to use such forms of diplomacy to prevent future uses of force.
I'm not sure how informed you are about the naval situation, but we have forces in the Mediterranean sufficient to launch cruise missile strikes against Syria and that is almost certainly what we will do. We don't want to risk downed pilots in Syria and well directed cruise missiles get the job done--which will most likely be a limited strike against chemical weapons facilities and potentially command and control facilities of the regime as a "punitive" measure.
That all makes sense.
I was more looking at other chatter sites I frequent, where it hasn't really pinged yet. And I guess Bluebook's comment of "war it is" put me in mind of the Gulf Wars or Afghanistan, but I guess this is more going to be a Libya level of intervention? Do you guys expect a significant number of boots on the ground or primarily blowing stuff up from a distance?
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2013, 04:47:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 04:30:59 PM
I am pretty sure I would root for the one not actively sponsoring sending bombs into crowded markets in Israel.
On the flip side, how many crowded markets elsewhere got bombed because of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabists?
Of the top of my head, I can think of one in southern Manhattan.
So, to sum up the Big Picture in language all Languish dorks can understand, at last count our choices in the region are:
Lawful Evil: Hezbollah/IRG/pro-Tehran Shia
Neutral Evil: Neo-Ba'athist dictator types in name only
Chaotic Evil: Pro-Sunni/AQ-types/Wahabbists
And of course our Chaotic Neutral friends, Israel.
Well, yahoo for us. Fire off a few cruise missiles, say we did our part in supporting the international oh-no-you-don't norms against the use of chemical weapons, and watch the eventual disintegration of the Western-imposed construct of post-Ottoman borders over the next several decades.
And Otto, once Syria becomes the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria and fully under the control of Hezbollah, I'm pretty sure Russia's berthing rights at Tartus will go.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 05:30:47 PM
Do you guys expect a significant number of boots on the ground or primarily blowing stuff up from a distance?
For four DDGs, my over/under number of Tomahawks launched will be: 32. A nice, round figure.
Plus any B-52's from Barksdale flinging a few.
:boner:
I think we should recommission one of the BB's and let it toss some 16" shells at the Syrian coastline.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 05:33:32 PM
And Otto, once Syria becomes the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria and fully under the control of Hezbollah, I'm pretty sure Russia's berthing rights at Tartus will go.
They're fighting Hezbollah militiamen right now. Even if they become the " Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria" that doesn't mean they'll be friends with Iran and their agents. Just the opposite in fact.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2013, 05:50:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 05:33:32 PM
And Otto, once Syria becomes the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria and fully under the control of Hezbollah, I'm pretty sure Russia's berthing rights at Tartus will go.
They're fighting Hezbollah militiamen right now. Even if they become the " Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Syria" that doesn't mean they'll be friends with Iran and their agents. Just the opposite in fact.
Nonsense. While Hezbollah's support of Assad in Lebanon isn't very popular on the ground, they're angling to prevent any pro-Sunni factions from controlling the government, and they'll hold their noses to keep doing so and ensure that the weapons gravy train from Tehran keeps going.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 05:20:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 26, 2013, 05:19:24 PM
I'm not readily aware of what sort of sub assets we have in the Med.
If you cant tell us the top secret locations of sub assets what good are you?
No shit. WTF do we pay him for, anyway??
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2013, 06:12:58 PMNo shit. WTF do we pay him for, anyway??
We don't pay him.
Whoosh.
Well, Xiacob the Canuckistanian ain't lying. :lol:
I hope Jake Yung Fat isn't gonna buzzkill this war.
:rolleyes:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-warplanes-cyprus-tensions-damascus (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-warplanes-cyprus-tensions-damascus)
I just came.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
What a silly thing to say.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 26, 2013, 03:52:15 PMThe policy to be adopted toward Syria IMO is obvious: he is a very bad guy who will stop at nothing, he is a key hinge point in the Iran-Hezbollah axis, he is our enemy and we (the West) should be against him. As to what that should entail, there is plenty of room for argument. But he is not the enemy of our enemy. He is the enemy of all breathing humans in his country who are not Alawite and who object to his iron fist.
Agreed.
QuoteThe ordinary Sunni in Syria is not a radical Islamist terrorist, but when the only people that stand up to protect them from atrocities are radical Islamists, it should not be surprising that those types grow in influence.
I've no idea if this is true but it seems likely to me that as a civil war goes on the more the extremes are likely to dominate both sides.
I find the confidence everyone here seems to have about who would win the civil war in Syria a bit confusing. If the Assad regime collapsed wouldn't that just probably lead to a continuing civil war between the numerous different rebel groups?
Oh boy, Syria and Iran are threating Israel if there is a strike. UNLEASH THE JEWS.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2013, 07:19:25 PM
If the Assad regime collapsed wouldn't that just probably lead to a continuing civil war between the numerous different rebel groups?
It'll be Lebanon writ large.
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 07:11:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
Whoosh.
I was playing along with your joke, dumbass.
Then just ignore it. No need to resort to name-calling.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2013, 07:27:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2013, 07:19:25 PM
If the Assad regime collapsed wouldn't that just probably lead to a continuing civil war between the numerous different rebel groups?
It'll be Lebanon writ large.
Exactly what I was going to say. Unless various entities funding rebels back off and one powerful sugar daddy props up a group against all the others I don't see it coming to a conclusion for any one side anytime in the near future.
Yeah, between Hezbollah being limited in its ability to fight a war it's not even really in the mood to fight and how there aren't enough pro-Sunni militias for the Gulf States to support with any real expectation of success, there's not going to be any real conclusive result without some serious proxy player coming in--we're not in the mood, the Russians aren't in a position to play and I sincerely doubt France or anybody else is, either. And you can definitely count out an Israeli invasion, a la '82.
It'll just degenerate into a big, old fashioned, no-definitive-winner civil war mess for a few more years.
I'm sorta amused that Maher Assad's 4th Armored division is considered 'elite'.
They're playing down to the level of their opponents. Just need coachin' up.
Great. They are the Cleveland Browns with Tim Couch.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 26, 2013, 08:06:15 PM
I'm sorta amused that Maher Assad's 4th Armored division is considered 'elite'.
Elite in that sense is not Elite as in the Seals or the Royal Marines; Elite in this sense is "consisting of the elite of society" and thus not likely to revolt. They are all cousins and nephews of the ruling class.
Now, thousands of Syrians can die from our chemical HE weapons! Huzzah!
Quote from: Scipio on August 26, 2013, 09:20:02 PM
Now, thousands of Syrians can die from our chemical HE weapons! Huzzah!
You're not suggesting there may be some serious unintended consequences, are you? :o
Somehow I don't think that would work out well for them... :hmm:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4422473,00.html
Quote
Syrian official: Israel 'will come under fire' if Syria attacked
Top member of Assad's party warns 'We have strategic weapons aimed at Israel.' Russia objects to intervention, cautions against repeat of 'past mistakes'
Roi Kais
Published: 08.26.13, 16:47 / Israel News
A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the United States.
In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad's fellow party member said: "We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel."
Al-Muftah stressed that the US's threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that "If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area's security, but the world's."
Earlier this week the Syrian top official said that an attack of this kind will expand the circle of hostilities beyond Syria. According to him, it may bring about a world-war, the extent of which cannot be foretold.
Talking to the Arabic-language Iranian channel al-Alam, al-Muftah said that the US is unable to attack Syria since Syria's retaliatory capabilities are well-known, and will be directed at Israel – according to him, the entity which pulls the Americans strings.
At the same time, another senior Syrian official, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad, issued similar statements in an interview for AP, saying that his country will defend itself against any international attack.
He added that strikes against Syria would trigger "chaos" and threaten worldwide peace and security.
He said a UN team in Damascus currently investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons should be allowed to do its work, before the world makes any judgment.
UN inspectors examine wounded
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday the Obama administration was studying intelligence on Syria's purported use of chemical weapons and "will get the facts" before acting.
Speaking with reporters after meeting with his Indonesian counterpart Hagel said, "We are analyzing the intelligence and we will get the facts and if there is any action taken it will be in concert with the international community and within the framework of a legal justification."
On Monday afternoon UN inspectors arrived at the Damascus suburb were the chemical attack allegedly occurred, and examined the bodies of the disease for evidence of the banned weapons.
"I am with the team now," the doctor who uses the name Abu Karam told Reuters by telephone from rebel-held Mouadamiya.
"We are in the Rawda mosque and they are meeting with the wounded. Our medics and the inspectors are talking to the patients and taking samples from the victims now."
Also Monday, the German government suggested for the first time that it would support an international military response if it is confirmed that Assad's troops attacked opponents with chemical weapons.
Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert said Monday that if UN inspectors confirm the use of chemical weapons, "it must be punished."
Past mistakes?
Meanwhile, Russia warned Western powers against any military intervention in Syria, saying the use of force without a UN mandate would be a grave violation of international law.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow had no plans to be drawn into a military conflict over the civil war in Syria and that Washington and its allies would be repeating "past mistakes" if they intervened in Syria.
"The use of force without the approval of the United Nations Security Council is a very grave violation of international law," Lavrov told a news conference at which he discussed accusations by rebel forces that Syrian government forces have used chemical weapons.
Russia is Syrian President Bashar Assad's key ally and one of its main arms suppliers, and a veto-wielding member of the Security Council.
Expressing concern about statements suggesting NATO had the right to intervene after a chemical attack without securing the approval of the United Nations, Lavrov said the unapproved use of force would "sharply aggravate" the situation.
He urged the West not to go down the "dangerous path" it had taken several times before and added: "We have no plans to go to war with anyone."
"If anybody thinks that bombing and destroying the Syrian military infrastructure, and leaving the battlefield for the opponents of the regime to win, would end everything - that is an illusion," Lavrov said.
Ed's War Boner Def Con level: 1
Confidence is HIGH. Prepare for pizza orders. Snacks are to be placed in readiness.
I have a feeling you'll be disappointed. I doubt it will be an operation over the course of several days, like Operation Desert Fox in 1998. This will just be a few dozen Tomahawks. I doubt any long range air assets will even be used.
They (as in the Washington Post) are talking 2 days of cruise missile fun. Enough for me in this parched TV summer.
I'll also play Tool's Vicarious while CNN is on.
It would probably make the Tomahawk strikes more effective if everybody didn't fucking tell them they were coming. Because, gee, letting them move assets or harden targets only makes it fair.
The Syrian runway repair folks are happy they are going to get to use their equipment.
The good news is that the administration has the full backing of the American people on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/
Gonna have to go with stated US policies and precedents regarding non-proliferation of NBC WMD on this one, derisolationist. Even if it's a token strike.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 08:29:51 AM
Gonna have to go with stated US policies and precedents regarding non-proliferation of NBC WMD on this one, derisolationist. Even if it's a token strike.
So we're not going to wait for more evidence, then? Why didn't we launch a bunch of expensive cruise missiles the first time, then?
I'm sure there's enough evidence that you're not aware of.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 08:53:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2013, 08:29:51 AM
Gonna have to go with stated US policies and precedents regarding non-proliferation of NBC WMD on this one, derisolationist. Even if it's a token strike.
So we're not going to wait for more evidence, then? Why didn't we launch a bunch of expensive cruise missiles the first time, then?
I assume the answer is that the US gov't wanted to build a consensus with other nations before acting - that is, follow the precedent of Lybia, rather than that of Iraq II. That explains why they didn't push the button a while ago, but are rather going to do so now.
Any action in Syria is going to be difficult and unpopular, with both other nations and with the US people (as you have pointed out). The gov't has to walk the tightrope between doing something to harm the undoubted bad guys (and sending a message that there are certain behaviours that the civilized world simply will not tolerate without consequence), and the requirements of realpolitic - as in, not doing damage to either the US interests or the government's own popularity within the US itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
The rest of the net is distracted by Hanna Montana becoming an exotic dancer.
You should launch Hanna Montana at Syria.
Btw, according to Kerry, attacking people-gassing dictator in Iraq: bad, attacking people-gassing dictator in Syria: good. How does that work?
Quote from: Solmyr on August 27, 2013, 09:30:08 AM
Btw, according to Kerry, attacking people-gassing dictator in Iraq: bad, attacking people-gassing dictator in Syria: good. How does that work?
Overthrowing people-gassing dictator in Iraq using American manpower 15 years after he did it: bad
Lobbing a few dozen cruise missiles at people-gassing dictator in Syria a week after he did it: good
Quote from: Solmyr on August 27, 2013, 09:30:08 AM
You should launch Hanna Montana at Syria.
War crime.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 27, 2013, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 26, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.
The rest of the net is distracted by Hanna Montana becoming an exotic dancer.
You should launch Hanna Montana at Syria.
Btw, according to Kerry, attacking people-gassing dictator in Iraq: bad, attacking people-gassing dictator in Syria: good. How does that work?
There's a statute of limitations to these things. We don't bomb the UK for using gas in WWI.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 09:07:53 AM
I assume the answer is that the US gov't wanted to build a consensus with other nations before acting - that is, follow the precedent of Lybia, rather than that of Iraq II. That explains why they didn't push the button a while ago, but are rather going to do so now.
Any action in Syria is going to be difficult and unpopular, with both other nations and with the US people (as you have pointed out). The gov't has to walk the tightrope between doing something to harm the undoubted bad guys (and sending a message that there are certain behaviours that the civilized world simply will not tolerate without consequence), and the requirements of realpolitic - as in, not doing damage to either the US interests or the government's own popularity within the US itself.
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 09:07:53 AM
I assume the answer is that the US gov't wanted to build a consensus with other nations before acting - that is, follow the precedent of Lybia, rather than that of Iraq II. That explains why they didn't push the button a while ago, but are rather going to do so now.
Any action in Syria is going to be difficult and unpopular, with both other nations and with the US people (as you have pointed out). The gov't has to walk the tightrope between doing something to harm the undoubted bad guys (and sending a message that there are certain behaviours that the civilized world simply will not tolerate without consequence), and the requirements of realpolitic - as in, not doing damage to either the US interests or the government's own popularity within the US itself.
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
Both sides have not, as far as I know, used chemical weapons on civilians.
The US national interest may not, directly, be served by involvement other than in this way: acting with punitive measures may ultimately discourage the use of chemical weapons more generally. Failing to discourage their use may lead to them being more generally available, which could have bad consequences for the US in the future either directly or indirectly.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
Both sides have not, as far as I know, used chemical weapons on civilians.
Just as both sides are not affiliated with al-Quaeda and other Islamists who will kill religious minorities should they win.
QuoteThe US national interest may not, directly, be served by involvement other than in this way: acting with punitive measures may ultimately discourage the use of chemical weapons more generally. Failing to discourage their use may lead to them being more generally available, which could have bad consequences for the US in the future either directly or indirectly.
I don't think US intervention will have any impact at all on proliferation & whether chemical weapons are used on us.
Yeah so what are they going to bomb? And for what purpose? Which faction are they helping with it? etc.
this is stupid.
I don't understand why the Syrian government would choose NOW to carry out a chemical attack. Haven't they been winning lately? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 10:33:35 AM
I don't understand why the Syrian government would choose NOW to carry out a chemical attack. Haven't they been winning lately? :hmm:
Probably because they thought they could get away with it now - and it seems likely they will.
It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 10:40:35 AM
It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.
Meh, thats a first world problem. I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 04:08:40 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 26, 2013, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.
nothing learned since 1979 in other words.
Assad is in no way shape or form a creature of US foriegn policy. Syria has been the enemy of the US and the rest of the West for many decades. In short, you are channelling Marti with that analogy. :P
afghanistan... not Iran.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 10:40:35 AM
It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.
Meh, thats a first world problem. I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.
No, that's rational tyrant-think, and if Assad was a "gas them for the heck of it" kind of guy, he would have done it earlier when he was more desperate. This is a rebel setup.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 10:40:35 AM
It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.
Meh, thats a first world problem. I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.
No, that's rational tyrant-think, and if Assad was a "gas them for the heck of it" kind of guy, he would have done it earlier when he was more desperate. This is a rebel setup.
Ok. But seems to me rationa tyrant think - if there is such a thing would run along the lines of making the deaths of his enemies as painful and gruesome as possible so that their power can be consolidated through terror. You know the opposite of first world think.
That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then? If it was part of something like an offensive or the kickoff of a grand cleansing or something, but no. He just shelled a bunch of randoms with gas just in time for UN inspection, readily serving NATO with a casus belli it was desperately needing.
This move will probably cost Assad the war, and is immensely irrational and stupid. And if a guy can manage a reign of terror for decades, then actually seem to be turning around a civil war against most of his country, well that guy is neither irrational, nor stupid.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
there was a gas-attack in May carried out by the rebels apparently
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 27, 2013, 11:09:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
there was a gas-attack in May carried out by the rebels apparently
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
See? This is the same kind of people who plant Hamas rocket launch sites next to schools and apartment buildings and then blame it on the jews. We should just let the two sides bleed each other to death.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:08:37 AM
That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then?
Already answered that. Because back then he probably couldnt get away with it. Now he probably can.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:08:37 AM
That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then?
Already answered that. Because back then he probably couldnt get away with it. Now he probably can.
:huh:
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:11:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:08:37 AM
That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then?
Already answered that. Because back then he probably couldnt get away with it. Now he probably can.
:huh:
You think the US is going to invade? Not a chance.
Bombing the shit out of Assad`s CandC may prove enough in the long run.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:13:01 AM
Bombing the shit out of Assad`s CandC may prove enough in the long run.
What do you mean by "enough"
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:13:01 AM
Bombing the shit out of Assad`s CandC may prove enough in the long run.
What do you mean by "enough"
in turning the tide against Assad in the civil war.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 10:40:35 AM
It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.
Meh, thats a first world problem. I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.
No, that's rational tyrant-think, and if Assad was a "gas them for the heck of it" kind of guy, he would have done it earlier when he was more desperate. This is a rebel setup.
An interesting theory.
Where did the rebels get all that sarin and the means to deliver it, do you think?
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
:rolleyes:
1. I wasn`t aware that I have to add the "IN MY OPINION" disclaimer after everything I write. Just imagine it after them.
2. It is in the interest of those people (US etc.) to be served with a casus belli, therefore they act as if this was indeed an Assad stunt.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:16:39 AM
An interesting theory.
Where did the rebels get all that sarin and the means to deliver it, do you think?
IIRC there were confirmed reports of the Turks finding sarin in an al-Nusra camp late this past Spring. I'm guessing they had raided Syrian government chemical stocks. Means to deliver it? That I honestly don't know.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 11:28:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
:rolleyes:
1. I wasn`t aware that I have to add the "IN MY OPINION" disclaimer after everything I write. Just imagine it after them.
2. It is in the interest of those people (US etc.) to be served with a casus belli, therefore they act as if this was indeed an Assad stunt.
It isn't really in our interest to be involved.
I'm not so sure that it's in our interest to have a CB against Syria.
Personally, I'd much rather see us bomb Iran or North Korea.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Could be that certain interventionist elements in Western countries want any excuse to get involved and aren't too concerned about actual proof. I know that's a cynical answer, but you asked a cynical question.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Could be that certain interventionist elements in Western countries want any excuse to get involved and aren't too concerned about actual proof. I know that's a cynical answer, but you asked a cynical question.
Meh, if the West wanted to get involved there have been plenty of "excuses" before now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:33:34 AM
Meh, if the West wanted to get involved there have been plenty of "excuses" before now.
Such as?
Also: wasn`t this a "red line" declared by Obama? Even if he doesn`t want to intervene, this is about losing face for him.
And declaring (true or false) that the rebs did it (ie. siding with Russia and China and Assad) would look horribly wrong for them unless there is some pretty conclusive proof for it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:16:39 AM
An interesting theory.
Where did the rebels get all that sarin and the means to deliver it, do you think?
Stole it from the Syrian army, then planted shells or containers in an area they expected the Syrian army to shell and waited for Syrian artillery to spread the agents.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Could be that certain interventionist elements in Western countries want any excuse to get involved and aren't too concerned about actual proof. I know that's a cynical answer, but you asked a cynical question.
That is certainly possible. But it seems rather implausible.
First of all, the people making the decisions don't seem to be fishing for an excuse - quite the opposite, they have consistently resisted getting involved at all at every turn of events. Further, they have nothing to gain by getting involved in a "cynical" manner - there is no support for this, there is no political hay to be made, and in actuality to risks in getting involved are considerable, and much MORE considerable if you calculate the risk of getting involved when you KNOW that it is all a setup, and we all know that lies like that almost never hold up over time.
I mean, sure, it is possible. But it seems pretty much of the "did the US really land on the moon?" level of conspiracy theory.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Could be that certain interventionist elements in Western countries want any excuse to get involved and aren't too concerned about actual proof. I know that's a cynical answer, but you asked a cynical question.
Who wants to get involved? The obvious suspects, the neo-cons, seem to be content to sit on the sidelines just pointing out that this is happened without a US invasion.
Quote from: Viking on August 27, 2013, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Could be that certain interventionist elements in Western countries want any excuse to get involved and aren't too concerned about actual proof. I know that's a cynical answer, but you asked a cynical question.
Who wants to get involved? The obvious suspects, the neo-cons, seem to be content to sit on the sidelines just pointing out that this is happened without a US invasion.
Neocons like Graham and McCain desperately want to intervene, and there is a strong interventionist faction in the administration. If nobody wanted to get involved, we wouldn't have had that red line in the first place.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 27, 2013, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
If this was a rebel setup, then how is it that the people contemplating reprisals against Assad are not aware of that?
How is it that Tamas can figure this out, but those with vastly greater amounts of intelligence and technical resources at their disposal have been fooled?
Could be that certain interventionist elements in Western countries want any excuse to get involved and aren't too concerned about actual proof. I know that's a cynical answer, but you asked a cynical question.
Who wants to get involved? The obvious suspects, the neo-cons, seem to be content to sit on the sidelines just pointing out that this is happened without a US invasion.
Neocons like Graham and McCain desperately want to intervene,
If McCain is for it, that is strong evidence that those who actually make decisions are not frothing at the mouth to intervene, since they pretty much have completely opposite views from McCain on almost all issues, and his promoting a course of events is a good way to get those in power to oppose said course.
Quoteand there is a strong interventionist faction in the administration. If nobody wanted to get involved, we wouldn't have had that red line in the first place.
That pre-supposes that the only reason to have said red line was the knowledge that it would be crossed.
Sometimes a red line is just a red line.
I wish the US would not get involved anywhere. Unless it is to nuke someone. ;)
I'm getting tired of these wars in the desert. <_<
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 10:10:22 AM
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
Can you see how your national interests are served if the entire world understands the "if you use chemical weapons, you die"-lesson?
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 10:10:22 AM
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
Can you see how your national interests are served if the entire world understands the "if you use chemical weapons, you die"-lesson?
Are we talking about using chemical weapons against the US or our allies? If not, then no, I can't.
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 27, 2013, 12:12:11 PM
I wish the US would not get involved anywhere. Unless it is to nuke someone. ;)
I'm getting tired of these wars in the desert. <_<
There has been some unrest recently in the Maldives...Should we make an exception to the nuke everything policy? :P
Dick Cheney would've gotten it done by now, dang nabbit!
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 27, 2013, 12:12:11 PM
I wish the US would not get involved anywhere. Unless it is to nuke someone. ;)
I'm getting tired of these wars in the desert. <_<
There has been some unrest recently in the Maldives...Should we make an exception to the nuke everything policy? :P
Are you using Obama code for "Malvinas"? :yeahright:
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
Are you using Obama code for "Malvinas"? :yeahright:
I don't think he wants to the falklands. He seems somewhat sane and lucid. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 27, 2013, 12:12:11 PM
I wish the US would not get involved anywhere. Unless it is to nuke someone. ;)
I'm getting tired of these wars in the desert. <_<
There has been some unrest recently in the Maldives...Should we make an exception to the nuke everything policy? :P
As long as I don't get deployed to the desert again, we should nuke whatever we need to. There may be some collateral damage. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:33:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
Are you using Obama code for "Malvinas"? :yeahright:
I don't think he wants to the falklands. He seems somewhat sane and lucid. :P
But IIRC, his wife is half Argie. Never trust Argies, nor those married to them :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 12:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 27, 2013, 12:33:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
Are you using Obama code for "Malvinas"? :yeahright:
I don't think he wants to the falklands. He seems somewhat sane and lucid. :P
But IIRC, his wife is half Argie. Never trust Argies, nor those married to them :ph34r:
Correct on all points.
My post wasn't meant to suggest I think there is some sort of conspiracy afoot here. :contract:
I am just struggling to understand Assad's motivation. If I may compare him to Saddam, Saddam as we know had vast chemical stockpiles during the Iran-Iraq War but IIRC he withheld use of them until after 1982 when Iran went on the offensive, and the Iraqis felt that the fall of Baghdad was a real possibility. He then gassed the shit out of his opponents toward the end of the war (Iran and the Kurds both) because he was trying to get Iran to the negotiating table as his country was totally exhausted by that point.
So If I'm Assad, and I appear to be winning, then what do I have to gain by using weapons that will almost certainly attract vast amounts of negative international attention? Don't give me the "HE'S CRAZY LOL!" excuse. He can't be that crazy, or he would have been offed a while ago by some dude in his military.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 10:10:22 AM
Both sides are the bad guys. And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.
Can you see how your national interests are served if the entire world understands the "if you use chemical weapons, you die"-lesson?
Are we talking about using chemical weapons against the US or our allies? If not, then no, I can't.
Interesting. And what is your opinion based on here? Pure self-interest, Im assuming?
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 12:56:19 PM
Interesting. And what is your opinion based on here? Pure self-interest, Im assuming?
National interest. So, yeah.
Certainly not that all men are created equal.
So anyway, what targets do we hit with our cruise missiles? Are there any aspirin factories in Syria??
I think it is certainly within US self interest to enforce the global ban on using WMDs.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2013, 10:30:10 AM
Yeah so what are they going to bomb?
The Syrian government forces.
Quote
And for what purpose?
As punishment for using chemical weapons, which is a violation of not only the laws of war, but also is considered to be a crime against humanity.
Quote
Which faction are they helping with it? etc.
Since it weakens the syrian government forces, presumably all fractions fighting against those forces.
But that is also irrelevant to the fact that the bombings will be a punishment for acting in a manner that is unacceptable to the civilized world.
Quote
this is stupid.
Not to be overly rude or anything, but judging from your arguments in this thread and the scenarios you are prepared to invent in order to put the blame somewhere other than in the hands of the Syrian government, you seem to be pretty stupid yourself.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 01:08:09 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 12:56:19 PM
Interesting. And what is your opinion based on here? Pure self-interest, Im assuming?
National interest. So, yeah.
And taking that position of yours and applying it to a hypothetical holocaust-type scenario, where does that leave you?
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 01:12:01 PM
So anyway, what targets do we hit with our cruise missiles? Are there any aspirin factories in Syria??
Taking out the Syrian airforce and all their air-defences seems like a no-brainer?
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 01:12:14 PM
I think it is certainly within US self interest to enforce the global ban on using WMDs.
I think derspiess' complaint is that it's not a Republican enforcing that global ban.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
And taking that position of yours and applying it to a hypothetical holocaust-type scenario, where does that leave you?
Hyperboleville, I guess.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 01:15:07 PM
Taking out the Syrian airforce and all their air-defences seems like a no-brainer?
From what I understand, we're likely to do a limited cruise missile strike. And it would probably take a little more than that to remove the Syrian air and air defense capability.
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
I think derspiess' complaint is that it's not a Republican enforcing that global ban.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 12:53:10 PM
So If I'm Assad, and I appear to be winning, then what do I have to gain by using weapons that will almost certainly attract vast amounts of negative international attention? Don't give me the "HE'S CRAZY LOL!" excuse. He can't be that crazy, or he would have been offed a while ago by some dude in his military.
He's stuck in a nasty stalemate. The Alawites don't even have full control of Damascus, he figured Obama was just blustering and wouldn't do shit if chemical weapons were used.
Yeah, he miscalculated on that last one but there have been so many atrocities committed by his faction that it's probably easy to slide into reaching for the sarin.
That or Assad dosen't have full control of his military.
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 01:12:14 PM
I think it is certainly within US self interest to enforce the global ban on using WMDs.
I think derspiess' complaint is that it's not a Republican enforcing that global ban.
Of course.
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 12:53:10 PM
My post wasn't meant to suggest I think there is some sort of conspiracy afoot here. :contract:
I am just struggling to understand Assad's motivation. If I may compare him to Saddam, Saddam as we know had vast chemical stockpiles during the Iran-Iraq War but IIRC he withheld use of them until after 1982 when Iran went on the offensive, and the Iraqis felt that the fall of Baghdad was a real possibility. He then gassed the shit out of his opponents toward the end of the war (Iran and the Kurds both) because he was trying to get Iran to the negotiating table as his country was totally exhausted by that point.
So If I'm Assad, and I appear to be winning, then what do I have to gain by using weapons that will almost certainly attract vast amounts of negative international attention? Don't give me the "HE'S CRAZY LOL!" excuse. He can't be that crazy, or he would have been offed a while ago by some dude in his military.
He may have very rationally reached the conclusion that negative international attention would not harm him one jot and that the US (and everyone else) will not, in fact, do squat.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 01:56:17 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 27, 2013, 12:53:10 PM
My post wasn't meant to suggest I think there is some sort of conspiracy afoot here. :contract:
I am just struggling to understand Assad's motivation. If I may compare him to Saddam, Saddam as we know had vast chemical stockpiles during the Iran-Iraq War but IIRC he withheld use of them until after 1982 when Iran went on the offensive, and the Iraqis felt that the fall of Baghdad was a real possibility. He then gassed the shit out of his opponents toward the end of the war (Iran and the Kurds both) because he was trying to get Iran to the negotiating table as his country was totally exhausted by that point.
So If I'm Assad, and I appear to be winning, then what do I have to gain by using weapons that will almost certainly attract vast amounts of negative international attention? Don't give me the "HE'S CRAZY LOL!" excuse. He can't be that crazy, or he would have been offed a while ago by some dude in his military.
He may have very rationally reached the conclusion that negative international attention would not harm him one jot and that the US (and everyone else) will not, in fact, do squat.
Could even be thinking that a relatively minor reaction (lob a few cruise missiles at him) might be a net benefit to him. Snubbing the Great Satan and all that, providing the populace with an external threat, etc., etc.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 27, 2013, 01:40:50 PM
That or Assad dosen't have full control of his military.
I'm leaning toward this.
We shouldn't assume that there is rational decision making going on. For example, Saddam Hussein stonewalled UN weapons inspectors time and time again when that was being used to justify the build up to an invasion.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
And taking that position of yours and applying it to a hypothetical holocaust-type scenario, where does that leave you?
Where does it leave your country?
Making ball bearings lulz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2013, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
And taking that position of yours and applying it to a hypothetical holocaust-type scenario, where does that leave you?
Where does it leave your country?
You dont think that is a bit irrelevant? We are talking about personal opinions here and now, you bring up something that is not about personal opinions and is from the past century.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 03:23:08 PM
You dont think that is a bit irrelevant? We are talking about personal opinions here and now, you bring up something that is not about personal opinions and is from the past century.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about the past.
You suggested a moral imperative to act in Syria, similar to the moral imperative of the Holocaust. Do you believe the same moral imperative applies to Sweden? Should Sweden do something in Syria to show that use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated? If so, what?
I'd actually be okay with Sweden invading. They can join the French aboard our transport.
Anyone else want to go?
I have the weirdest boner right now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2013, 04:18:25 PM
I have the weirdest boner right now.
Sweden on your mind?
Wait, that sounded gay.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2013, 04:18:25 PM
I have the weirdest boner right now.
Quick, get someone to wheel you to the hospital. :(
So North Korea tried to ship gas masks and weapons to the Assad regime through... Turkey? :huh:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-north-korea-syria-gas-masks-20130827,0,5415324.story
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2013, 01:40:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
I think derspiess' complaint is that it's not a Republican enforcing that global ban.
:rolleyes:
Jake is wrong of course. The prospect of another Benghazi makes Derspeiss's mouth water.
What difference does it make?
I have her photo on the back of my front door. Who do you think I pray to before leaving everyday?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2013, 03:33:19 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on August 27, 2013, 03:23:08 PM
You dont think that is a bit irrelevant? We are talking about personal opinions here and now, you bring up something that is not about personal opinions and is from the past century.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking about the past.
You suggested a moral imperative to act in Syria, similar to the moral imperative of the Holocaust. Do you believe the same moral imperative applies to Sweden? Should Sweden do something in Syria to show that use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated? If so, what?
What we lack in military ability, we more than make up for in empty rethoric!
The sad truth is that while we have troops in Afghanistan since 02 and while we have had missions to Somalia, Liberia and Libya, we never go alone and never without a UN-mandate.
I would like us to join a coallition of the willing to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria, and a naval blockade. But that is just wishful thinking. The current administration is very UN-oriented, and the UN is being its useless self in this conflict.
Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns (http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642/)
QuoteWASHINGTON—In light of increased pressure on President Obama to order a military strike on Syria, leading historians and military experts on Tuesday simply pointed to the United States' longstanding and absolutely impeccable record of successful bombing campaigns over the past 60 years. "The record clearly shows that, in every instance since the Second World War in which the U.S. government has launched strategic missile attacks on foreign soil, our military forces easily targeted enemy assailants with total precision, leaving no civilian casualties, collateral damage, or any long-term negative consequences for the affected country or region, American foreign policy, or international relations as a whole," said Harvard University historian Dr. Michael Carmona, adding that such past U.S. bombing operations have gone particularly well in Middle Eastern countries over the last century. "Just look at the 1954 bombings in Guatemala, the 1965-to-1973 bombings in Laos and Cambodia, the 1982 bombings in Beirut, the 1986 bombings in Libya, the 1987 bombings in Iran, the 1998 bombings in Iraq, the 1998 bombings in Sudan, the 1998 bombings in Afghanistan, routine airstrikes in Pakistan since 2005, the 2007 bombings in Somalia, the 2011 bombings in Somalia, and essentially the entire American military effort in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. Those were all executed perfectly, and led, in the long run, to the most desirable possible outcome." All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region, change that you will one day look back on with a deep sense of confidence, pride, and assurance that you did the right thing, then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.
More seriously, there's a very good commentary on German news site Die Zeit, about why the international community doesn't take Germany seriously when it comes to a crisis like Syria - main point was, "Much criticism, but little effort". And that while in topics of economics the world looks to Germany, but when there's an international crisis they know Germany will stand back, the general public asking for America to do something (and then complaining about America playing Imperialist World Police when they do), and in general criticizing whatever happens.
Best comment from Merkel: "These actions must not be without consequence." I.e., "Somebody do something!"
So tomorrow the house of commons votes, Friday is the muslim holy day, so time for Ed to keep a flexible schedule on Saturday or Sunday?
Have they outlined what is the general goal of the coming cruise-missiling?
Regime infrastructure gets 60-100 tomahawks from the US destroyers, the UK throws in 10 via a sub, the French....3 mirages patrol over the naval taskforce. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2013, 07:10:06 AM
Have they outlined what is the general goal of the coming cruise-missiling?
Punitive punitiveness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 08:04:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2013, 07:10:06 AM
Have they outlined what is the general goal of the coming cruise-missiling?
Punitive punitiveness.
Punitive Putiness? :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on August 28, 2013, 06:25:54 AM
So tomorrow the house of commons votes, Friday is the muslim holy day, so time for Ed to keep a flexible schedule on Saturday or Sunday?
Thursday evening or Friday evening. I don't think the pentagon cares about the holy day crap anymore.
I remain at WAR BONER ONE. THIS IS CRYSTAL PALACE, CONFIDENCE IS HIGH.
Pfft, you get dickteased so easily.
5 destroyers, 2 subs, a UK sub, no air assets. Maybe 2 days' worth of volleys. [homer]Bor-ring.[/homer]
Russians evacuating their nationals. Fap fap fap fap
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 08:42:57 AM
Pfft, you get dickteased so easily.
5 destroyers, 2 subs, a UK sub, no air assets. Maybe 2 days' worth of volleys. [homer]Bor-ring.[/homer]
THERE IS NOTHING ON TV.
You tried watching Amish Mafia out of boredom? Not a pretty picture my friend.
Yeah, I know...but instead of a weekend war with the same rote coverage, what we need is a nice, long televised criminal case in some stupid state somewhere.
Derspiess, garbon's got a bottle of Evian and some Mentos. Go shoot him.
I'm not a fan of televised court cases. OJ burned me completely out.
Caught an Austrian tabloid page today: "Is a World War looming?"
http://www.oe24.at/welt/Syrien-Droht-neuer-Weltkrieg/114206899
(The article doesn't discuss the question, though.)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 08:47:03 AM
Yeah, I know...but instead of a weekend war with the same rote coverage, what we need is a nice, long televised criminal case in some stupid state somewhere.
Derspiess, garbon's got a bottle of Evian and some Mentos. Go shoot him.
I'll be celebrating my 40th birthday all weekend, so I won't be in the mood to shoot anyone.
LOL though at the Evian & Mentos.
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2013, 08:49:12 AM
Caught an Austrian tabloid page today: "Is a World War looming?"
They've got nerve.
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2013, 08:49:12 AM
Caught an Austrian tabloid page today: "Is a World War looming?"
http://www.oe24.at/welt/Syrien-Droht-neuer-Weltkrieg/114206899
(The article doesn't discuss the question, though.)
Now if someone would replace Obama's head with a cat's in that cheesy picture.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 28, 2013, 07:20:09 AM
Regime infrastructure gets 60-100 tomahawks from the US destroyers, the UK throws in 10 via a sub, the French....3 mirages patrol over the naval taskforce. ;)
Syt and Zanza, the entire French military is away; this is your chance for Alsace and Lorraine!
So our World Wars would be fought for Serbia, Poland, and Syria? How embarrasing.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 28, 2013, 07:20:09 AM
Regime infrastructure gets 60-100 tomahawks from the US destroyers, the UK throws in 10 via a sub, the French....3 mirages patrol over the naval taskforce. ;)
Syt and Zanza, the entire French military is away; this is your chance for Alsace and Lorraine!
Quiche is overrated!
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 08:49:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 08:47:03 AM
Yeah, I know...but instead of a weekend war with the same rote coverage, what we need is a nice, long televised criminal case in some stupid state somewhere.
Derspiess, garbon's got a bottle of Evian and some Mentos. Go shoot him.
I'll be celebrating my 40th birthday all weekend, so I won't be in the mood to shoot anyone.
LOL though at the Evian & Mentos.
Happy 40th speiss. :thumbsup:
Oh yeah, happy birthday and all that, filthy Cards lover. :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 08:49:23 AM
I'll be celebrating my 40th birthday all weekend, so I won't be in the mood to shoot anyone.
Happy 40th. Happy Warranty Expired.
I'm still 39 for the next 3 days and 6 hours, but thanks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 09:44:08 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 08:49:23 AM
I'll be celebrating my 40th birthday all weekend, so I won't be in the mood to shoot anyone.
Happy Warranty Expired.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 09:44:08 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 08:49:23 AM
I'll be celebrating my 40th birthday all weekend, so I won't be in the mood to shoot anyone.
Happy 40th. Happy Warranty Expired.
Ain't that the truth. :mybackandkneeshurt:
So if this report about the chemical weapons unit commander carrying out the strike without authorization from his superior/Syrian defence ministry is true what might have been the cause ?
A fuck-up, intentional decision by commander to up the ante, perhaps he was bribed to do it ?
My launcher is fully erect.
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 04:43:01 PM
So if this report about the chemical weapons unit commander carrying out the strike without authorization from his superior/Syrian defence ministry is true what might have been the cause ?
A fuck-up, intentional decision by commander to up the ante, perhaps he was bribed to do it ?
Link?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2013, 05:29:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 04:43:01 PM
So if this report about the chemical weapons unit commander carrying out the strike without authorization from his superior/Syrian defence ministry is true what might have been the cause ?
A fuck-up, intentional decision by commander to up the ante, perhaps he was bribed to do it ?
Link?
It was mentioned somewhere, it's supposedly the substance of the Israeli intelligence, that they picked up comms between the two, the commander and the defence depart/minister in charge.
If so I'll be referenced in the next 2-3 days I guess.
So, an unverified rumor. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2013, 05:52:13 PM
So, an unverified rumor. :P
Goddam lazy arsed kids today. :rolleyes:
try googling something like " chemical weapons commander syria israeli intercept "
Oh look, I'll give you a url so your poor tired little self doesn't have to paste it into a browser box:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=chemical+weapons+commander+syria+israeli+intercept&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest (http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=chemical+weapons+commander+syria+israeli+intercept&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest)
:P
See, the 'story'/report is all over the news now.
^^^ It doesn't matter if Assad didn't order the attack personally. He's responsible for the actions of his armed forces. In fact, if things are spiraling out of control so badly that units are using chemical weapons on their own accord that's even worse.
Anyways, I think Iran is bluffing. They aren't going to do shit.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/28/syria-retaliation-threat/2723629/
Iran's full of shit, they're not going to waste their network assets for the sake of Syria when they're worried about using it if and when the West does something about their nuclear program.
Hezbollah and Hamas are not in a position to do more than launch missiles into Israel, because that never happens anyway.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2013, 05:06:26 PM
My launcher is fully erect.
If it lasts for more than 4 hours you are supposed to go see your doctor. You are going on 48 now...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 06:41:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2013, 05:06:26 PM
My launcher is fully erect.
If it lasts for more than 4 hours you are supposed to go see your doctor. You are going on 48 now...
Crews are deflating the launcher as needed.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2013, 07:17:27 PM
Crews are deflating the launcher as needed.
For the next three days, every time you post about missiles launched we'll not know if your updating us on the conflict or describing you latest attempt at siring.
I am a man of mystery.
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 04:43:01 PM
So if this report about the chemical weapons unit commander carrying out the strike without authorization from his superior/Syrian defence ministry is true what might have been the cause ?
A fuck-up, intentional decision by commander to up the ante, perhaps he was bribed to do it ?
There is a reason why we don't give ground commanders access to chemical or nuclear weapons. Sounds like a bullshit excuse. If they provided the commanders with nerve gas they can't go back and say "wasn't our fault, he didn't put in the paper work to use them".
Agree with Skull Ranch.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2013, 07:50:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 04:43:01 PM
So if this report about the chemical weapons unit commander carrying out the strike without authorization from his superior/Syrian defence ministry is true what might have been the cause ?
A fuck-up, intentional decision by commander to up the ante, perhaps he was bribed to do it ?
There is a reason why we don't give ground commanders access to chemical or nuclear weapons. Sounds like a bullshit excuse. If they provided the commanders with nerve gas they can't go back and say "wasn't our fault, he didn't put in the paper work to use them".
It does sound like a bullshit excuse, but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Assad doesn't keep chemical weapons in his backyard, just as Obama doesn't keep them in the White House. Aspects of the military have the weapons. If a part of those aspects go rouge, then I think some questions are worth asking:
--will firing cruise missiles result in regime change, and will the group or groups that get power of the stockpiles be able to exercise better command and control?
--if the regime collapses as a result of firing missiles, will the groups that fill the void respect human rights and the norms of war?
--if we fire cruise missiles and the regime endures, will the firing of cruise missiles lead to a further breakdown in command and control that allowed the use of chemical weapons in the first place?
You've been watching too much Canadian football Fredo. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2013, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2013, 07:50:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 04:43:01 PM
So if this report about the chemical weapons unit commander carrying out the strike without authorization from his superior/Syrian defence ministry is true what might have been the cause ?
A fuck-up, intentional decision by commander to up the ante, perhaps he was bribed to do it ?
There is a reason why we don't give ground commanders access to chemical or nuclear weapons. Sounds like a bullshit excuse. If they provided the commanders with nerve gas they can't go back and say "wasn't our fault, he didn't put in the paper work to use them".
It does sound like a bullshit excuse, but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Assad doesn't keep chemical weapons in his backyard, just as Obama doesn't keep them in the White House. Aspects of the military have the weapons. If a part of those aspects go rouge, then I think some questions are worth asking:
--will firing cruise missiles result in regime change, and will the group or groups that get power of the stockpiles be able to exercise better command and control?
--if the regime collapses as a result of firing missiles, will the groups that fill the void respect human rights and the norms of war?
--if we fire cruise missiles and the regime endures, will the firing of cruise missiles lead to a further breakdown in command and control that allowed the use of chemical weapons in the first place?
And that is why I think we should just nuke 'em. Nuke 'em all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:16:37 PM
You've been watching too much Canadian football Fredo. :P
I don't know what that means.
I also don't know what good is going to come from a few missiles fired into Syria, which is the point I was trying to make.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2013, 09:25:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:16:37 PM
You've been watching too much Canadian football Fredo. :P
I don't know what that means.
I also don't know what good is going to come from a few missiles fired into Syria, which is the point I was trying to make.
Nothing. Except for my muder boner to grow.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2013, 09:11:07 PM
It does sound like a bullshit excuse, but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Assad doesn't keep chemical weapons in his backyard, just as Obama doesn't keep them in the White House. Aspects of the military have the weapons. If a part of those aspects go rouge, then I think some questions are worth asking:
--will firing cruise missiles result in regime change, and will the group or groups that get power of the stockpiles be able to exercise better command and control?
--if the regime collapses as a result of firing missiles, will the groups that fill the void respect human rights and the norms of war?
--if we fire cruise missiles and the regime endures, will the firing of cruise missiles lead to a further breakdown in command and control that allowed the use of chemical weapons in the first place?
You're really overrating the effectiveness of cruise missile volleys--particularly when, since the establishment of their use as a policy device, none of the above has ever occurred in limited, mission-specific and proportionate-response strikes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 09:27:44 PM
You're really overrating the effectiveness of cruise missile volleys--particularly when, since the establishment of their use as a policy device, none of the above has ever occurred in limited, mission-specific and proportionate-response strikes.
So we fire a bunch of really expensive missiles that don't do accomplish anything other than blowing up Ahmet and his family because they live next to some general (who has spent the last few days moving underground). Super.
I think the 'publicity' about a cruise missile package is being overplayed, I wouldn't be surprised if it were actually a good bit more than just the advertised 100 missiles.
Perhaps something that tips momentum back in favour of the rebels? :unsure:
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2013, 09:32:18 PM
So we fire a bunch of really expensive missiles that don't do accomplish anything other than blowing up Ahmet and his family because they live next to some general (who has spent the last few days moving underground). Super.
You act like this is some sort of new new development in US foreign policy.
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
Obama never, ever, ever does anything without first running the it up the flag pole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
Obama never, ever, ever does anything without first running the it up the flag pole.
Well that doesn't make for the most effective military strategy.
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:38:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
Obama never, ever, ever does anything without first running the it up the flag pole.
Well that doesn't make for the most effective military strategy.
If we are really only going to toss a handful of missiles Syrias way and then move on, I doubt this is about accomplishing anything militarily. This would be about doing the minimum possible to go on record as responding after chemical weapons were used, and responding when your red line was crossed.
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
On the other hand, it would be beneficial to know exactly what the Syrians are doing tactically in the face of a possible attack, if only to know what their contingencies are in the event that future attacks are required on particular assets; not to mention the longer they're on alert, the more fried they'll be. But that all depends on precisely how well things are being monitored on the ground, and we just don't know.
I personally don't like the advanced you-know-we're-gonna-do-it stuff either, but that's sorta like Ohio State telling Baldwin Wallace U that they plan on running the ball. Now they know, but there's not like there's a whole hell of a lot they can do about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
Obama never, ever, ever does anything without first running the it up the flag pole.
He's at least a little less deliberate about it than Clinton was. He wouldn't take a dump without holding a couple focus groups and doing some opinion polls.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 09:58:42 PM
He's at least a little less deliberate about it than Clinton was. He wouldn't take a dump without holding a couple focus groups and doing some opinion polls.
I don't recall any opinion polls on Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan or Iraq'93, '96, or '98. Silly derhyperbole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
Obama never, ever, ever does anything without first running the it up the flag pole.
In this case I think Cameron and Miliband have made it all far more public :bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 09:45:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
I seems a bit odd to be apparently telegraphing so clearly the scope and nature of the attack beforehand to the Syrian government.
On the other hand, it would be beneficial to know exactly what the Syrians are doing tactically in the face of a possible attack, if only to know what their contingencies are in the event that future attacks are required on particular assets; not to mention the longer they're on alert, the more fried they'll be. But that all depends on precisely how well things are being monitored on the ground, and we just don't know.
I personally don't like the advanced you-know-we're-gonna-do-it stuff either, but that's sorta like Ohio State telling Baldwin Wallace U that they plan on running the ball. Now they know, but there's not like there's a whole hell of a lot they can do about it.
Ohio State analogies.... :hug:
Also, I fainted from all my blood going to my crotch.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2013, 06:31:39 AM
Ohio State analogies.... :hug:
I always preferred to use FSU analogies, because Bobby Bowden actually would say he was gonna to do, and dang nabbit, we're gonna do it. But he's retired. :(
Like when they pasted Maryland on a Thursday night broadcast once, and the Terps bitched about FSU running up the score. "It's not my boys' fault your first team can't stop my third team." So true, Bobby. So true.
So I'm checking the news sites, and one has an ad to send a poor Jewish kid to camp. First thing that popped into my mind:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F500.gif&hash=43e388e819282612d1fc8e04b1aa332636ecc3d2)
:blush:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2013, 06:43:56 AM
So I'm checking the news sites, and one has an ad to send a poor Jewish kid to camp. First thing that popped into my mind:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F500.gif&hash=43e388e819282612d1fc8e04b1aa332636ecc3d2)
:blush:
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 10:02:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 09:58:42 PM
He's at least a little less deliberate about it than Clinton was. He wouldn't take a dump without holding a couple focus groups and doing some opinion polls.
I don't recall any opinion polls on Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan or Iraq'93, '96, or '98. Silly derhyperbole.
:huh: You think they didn't run polls? His team ran polls on everything.
Anyway, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56
By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly. Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report. Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.
Sorry Ed. No war porn for you it seems.
GODDAMN FUCKING PUSSY EUROPEANS.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2013, 11:07:47 AM
GODDAMN FUCKING PUSSY EUROPEANS.
Eh Obama is facing a Congressional revolt against it. NO WAR FOR...erm....whatever they have in Syria.
"Syria Conflict Intensifies As Bears Enter War"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.onionstatic.com%2Fimages%2F23%2F23307%2Foriginal%2F700.jpg%3F0261&hash=88c6a614e2d9ba465dbb97b549dd7bd6ff42159e)
Other than perhaps salvaging Obama's credibility (which is a not unimportant goal, but a situation which was largely self-inflicted), is there realistically any good that could come from intervening in Syria (especially in a limited way, as has been proposed)?
Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?
Who says we're hitting CW stockpiles?
Punitive strikes for using them is not the same as destroying them. That is a totally different policy aim, with an entirely different angle.
Quote from: Zanza on August 29, 2013, 12:23:04 PM
Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?
If the gas is flammable then it'll explode/burn. I think most weaponized gas is not flammable, so it'll be released in the immediate environment. Gas in the open environment tends to disperse fairly quickly, so it should drop below lethal concentrations within a short period (hours, maybe days).
Quote from: Zanza on August 29, 2013, 12:23:04 PM
Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?
Depends on which kind of gas. But, virtually all of them are organic compounds and consequently they burn. When it burns is will combust to co2, water and various sulpher and nitrogen oxides, many of which are highly toxic (but not as dangerous as the chemical weapons)
Even if the stuff just leaks, it is likely to not do much damage. The heavier gasses might pool in sinks in the ground, but a sunny day will probably be enough to break down the chemicals.
Quote from: Kleves on August 29, 2013, 12:05:48 PM
Other than perhaps salvaging Obama's credibility (which is a not unimportant goal, but a situation which was largely self-inflicted), is there realistically any good that could come from intervening in Syria (especially in a limited way, as has been proposed)?
It would satisfy the bloodlust of Samantha Power and Susan Rice. For the time being.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 10:40:30 AM
By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly. Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report. Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.
Sorry Ed. No war porn for you it seems.
Hollande seems to be toning down his rhetoric as well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-hollande-idUSBRE97S0CU20130829
Time to run it back down the flag pole?
Poor Boner. :(
Time to seek immediate medical help, I'm afraid. :(
Quote from: Viking on August 29, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: Zanza on August 29, 2013, 12:23:04 PM
Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?
Depends on which kind of gas. But, virtually all of them are organic compounds and consequently they burn. When it burns is will combust to co2, water and various sulpher and nitrogen oxides, many of which are highly toxic (but not as dangerous as the chemical weapons)
Even if the stuff just leaks, it is likely to not do much damage. The heavier gasses might pool in sinks in the ground, but a sunny day will probably be enough to break down the chemicals.
CO2 emissions! The case for war is the case for environmental terrorism, or something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 10:40:30 AM
By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly. Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report. Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.
Sorry Ed. No war porn for you it seems.
The claim about U.S. intelligence concerns doesn't actually make sense in this context. You're basically an imbecile anytime the United States is involved in one of your posts, and incapable of hearing any contrary points--but I'll engage in this futile exercise. In prior chemical attacks the UK has had intelligence assets that confirmed the chemical attacks, I believe France has as well. But the Obama administration has been reluctant to immediately agree with the assessment of its European allies. So a protocol was put in place in which the three countries (UK, France, and US) would try to collect and process their own direct evidence and then compare results later.
In this particular scenario both the French and British concluded chemical weapons were used and concluded that far faster than the United States. I'm not even aware if Obama has received the final assessment from the U.S. intelligence agencies yet, although they've preliminarily said they found chemical weapons use. The UN inspectors even say that much, so in this scenario it really makes no sense to link Cameron or the British reticence with U.S. intelligence. They have their own intelligence, have had their own intelligence processed longer, and it was reported in Parliament that British intelligence actually identified
twelve instances in which it believes Assad has used chemical weapons (the rest were much smaller attacks.) It instead seems like both the MPs raising concerns and the British people are not as concerned about whether or not chemical weapons are used so much as they share the concerns of people like myself, who are instead fearful that any involvement only makes the situation worse and really achieves no worthy goals.
So you presenting it as a case of Cameron being initially desirous of military strikes because of U.S. intelligence and now being reigned in because of doubts of said intelligence just doesn't make sense whatsoever.
I highly doubt you'll say anything reasonable in response to this, but will instead find a way to continually link this in some way to America=evil.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 29, 2013, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 10:40:30 AM
By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly. Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report. Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.
Sorry Ed. No war porn for you it seems.
The claim about U.S. intelligence concerns doesn't actually make sense in this context. You're basically an imbecile anytime the United States is involved in one of your posts, and incapable of hearing any contrary points--but I'll engage in this futile exercise. In prior chemical attacks the UK has had intelligence assets that confirmed the chemical attacks, I believe France has as well. But the Obama administration has been reluctant to immediately agree with the assessment of its European allies. So a protocol was put in place in which the three countries (UK, France, and US) would try to collect and process their own direct evidence and then compare results later.
In this particular scenario both the French and British concluded chemical weapons were used and concluded that far faster than the United States. I'm not even aware if Obama has received the final assessment from the U.S. intelligence agencies yet, although they've preliminarily said they found chemical weapons use. The UN inspectors even say that much, so in this scenario it really makes no sense to link Cameron or the British reticence with U.S. intelligence. They have their own intelligence, have had their own intelligence processed longer, and it was reported in Parliament that British intelligence actually identified twelve instances in which it believes Assad has used chemical weapons (the rest were much smaller attacks.) It instead seems like both the MPs raising concerns and the British people are not as concerned about whether or not chemical weapons are used so much as they share the concerns of people like myself, who are instead fearful that any involvement only makes the situation worse and really achieves no worthy goals.
So you presenting it as a case of Cameron being initially desirous of military strikes because of U.S. intelligence and now being reigned in because of doubts of said intelligence just doesn't make sense whatsoever.
I highly doubt you'll say anything reasonable in response to this, but will instead find a way to continually link this in some way to America=evil.
Holy over reaction batman. Were you involved in the last US intellgence screw up? Seems that a rather innocous observation that is being said all over the airwaves today hits pretty close to the bone with you for some reason.
Mm hmm. Illogical conclusion not based on anything we've actually read in the news--gotcha.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 29, 2013, 02:12:23 PM
Mm hmm. Illogical conclusion not based on anything we've actually read in the news--gotcha.
So you dont see any parallel at all to people taking military action on the strength of the intelligence services in the West saying they think that a particular narrative of events is accurate? Now that is some pretty bad long term memory problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 10:40:30 AM
By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly. Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report. Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.
It's not been great to watch. From what I can tell Miliband and Cameron had broadly agreed a position and were working together on Wednesday. Then it looked like Miliband didn't have the support of the shadow cabinet so wants two resolutions in the Commons - before and after the UN vote.
Which should've been fine for Cameron, but it turned out he'd misjudged the mood of Tory MPs and probably couldn't get Parliament to support his foreign policy (which is something I don't think's ever happened before). So he gave in to Miliband who proceeded to tell the Commons that he doesn't think Cameron's made the case for action. One Downing Street official described Miliband as a 'fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit' over this, and said he's more or less dead to the French and the Democrats. Then the Downing Street communication chief and the Defence Secretary accused Miliband of 'giving succour to Assad'. Embarrassing from everyone :bleeding:
And we face the prospect of the French and the US taking action without us :o :bleeding:
Interestingly from what I can tell there was a generational difference in the debate though. The House of Lords was haunted by Bosnia, the Commons by Iraq.
Also, for what it's worth, you've got the Iraq intelligence situation wrong. We gave the Americans dodgy intelligence just as much and, in a (foolish) break from history, the government tried to publish the intelligence (which they didn't sex up) rather than just giving assurances. And it was wrong.
QuoteOther than perhaps salvaging Obama's credibility (which is a not unimportant goal, but a situation which was largely self-inflicted), is there realistically any good that could come from intervening in Syria (especially in a limited way, as has been proposed)?
Credibility is the worst, most anemic argument for doing anything. The US and Obama don't lack credibility, nor would they if they didn't act (except domestically) and it wouldn't matter anyway.
The argument for intervening is that there's punishment for use of chemical weapons. Don't do it again or we'll fuck you up again and maybe more.
It's always worth remembering that Hollande and Cameron have always been far more enthusiastic on any intervention than Obama.
Also, as an aside, the irony of Cameron's difficulty is that legally he doesn't need anyone's permission to go to war - even full on war - because it's a royal prerogative. Obama legally probably really should consul Congress - not that any other modern President has had to.
I think Obama should consult congress, but he doesn't have to.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 02:18:59 PM
Which should've been fine for Cameron, but it turned out he'd misjudged the mood of Tory MPs and probably couldn't get Parliament to support his foreign policy (which is something I don't think's ever happened before). So he gave in to Miliband who proceeded to tell the Commons that he doesn't think Cameron's made the case for action. One Downing Street official described Miliband as a 'fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit' over this, and said he's more or less dead to the French and the Democrats. Then the Downing Street communication chief and the Defence Secretary accused Miliband of 'giving succour to Assad'. Embarrassing from everyone :bleeding:
Considering Cameron must have recalled Parliament thinking this would be a fairly straight forward matter it seems both sides did more damage to themselves than any possible other alternative.
Credibility is an argument for not making threats you don't intend to keep, not for keeping them when it would harm you to do so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 02:26:06 PMConsidering Cameron must have recalled Parliament thinking this would be a fairly straight forward matter it seems both sides did more damage to themselves than any possible other alternative.
Actually I think recalling Parliament was his first sign things were up. There was no need to do it, by convention he should have recalled Parliament if the UK go involved. There was a lot of pressure from MPs for Cameron to recall Parliament and for it to assert itself.
QuoteCredibility is an argument for not making threats you don't intend to keep, not for keeping them when it would harm you to do so.
That's fair enough, but it looks like Obama does intend to keep his threat.
My point is fears about your 'credibility' are absurd in foreign policy. The only relevance is for domestic politics.
Edit: Also UKIP is emerging as the anti-war party.
George Galloway also made the cui bono argument of 'we all know Assad is BAD enough but is he MAD enough' to use chemical weapons. Also that minorities live in fear of the rebels living. Needless to say both are better arguments than his original Israel gave the rebels chemical weapons as a false flag to prompt a Western attack on Syria :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 02:26:28 PM
Credibility is an argument for not making threats you don't intend to keep, not for keeping them when it would harm you to do so.
It's both, though. If you know that the guy threatening you feels very strongly about following through on his threats regardless of how prudent the threat was in the first place, you kind of take any threat at face value. You avoid the situation where the threatened guy can miscalculate and not take your threat seriously (which would lead to a lose-lose situation).
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
My point is fears about your 'credibility' are absurd in foreign policy. The only relevance is for domestic politics.
Exactly the opposite. As you and I agreed earlier, the domestic constituency for maintaining credibility is six fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations and two staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign policy is where it is advantageous to deter action through a threat, avoiding the muss and fuss of acting on the threat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 02:38:04 PMExactly the opposite. As you and I agreed earlier, the domestic constituency for maintaining credibility is six fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations and two staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Or for candidates to moan vacuously about 'weakness' and the need for a 'strong' stance. Which is nonsense but that's the benefit.
QuoteForeign policy is where it is advantageous to deter action through a threat, avoiding the muss and fuss of acting on the threat.
You can threaten without actually following through and your threats still have credibility - see the USSR.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 02:52:46 PM
Or for candidates to moan vacuously about 'weakness' and the need for a 'strong' stance. Which is nonsense but that's the benefit.
That has nothing to do with acting on your threats after you've made them.
QuoteYou can threaten without actually following through and your threats still have credibility - see the USSR.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 02:56:55 PM
That has nothing to do with acting on your threats after you've made them.
Which I've said is pointless in foreign policy. It only matters in domestic politics.
QuotePlease elaborate.
The Soviet Union constantly made threats - especially against Berlin. At times they certainly looked like acting on it. They never did but it was a constant worry for Western policy makers and caused them to change policy, in the Cuban Missile Crisis for example. The credibility of the threat didn't matter, the Soviet ability to carry it through did - I think this is also the difference with say, the USSR, making a threat and the North Koreans or the Syrians. Both are possible, both could be credible, the USSR one is considerably more serious because they're far more able to follow through.
I'm struggling to recall any threats the Soviets made about Berlin or Cuba. They didn't threaten to build a wall, they built a wall. They didn't threaten to blockade, they blockaded. They didn't threaten to ship nukes to Cuba, they shipped nukes to Cuba.
Quote from: DGuller on August 29, 2013, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 02:26:28 PM
Credibility is an argument for not making threats you don't intend to keep, not for keeping them when it would harm you to do so.
It's both, though. If you know that the guy threatening you feels very strongly about following through on his threats regardless of how prudent the threat was in the first place, you kind of take any threat at face value. You avoid the situation where the threatened guy can miscalculate and not take your threat seriously (which would lead to a lose-lose situation).
Credibility is also useful so you can bluff people into doing what you want. If a bluff is ineffective I don't think you should try to save credibility by going all in. Cut your losses and fold is a better strategy.
I don't know if Obama was trying to bluff Syria into not using chemical weapons. My guess is that when he decided not to intervene in the civil war was just trying to find a middle ground and throw a bone to the interventionists (as Obama tends to do). I would also guess that few would confuse statements on a low priority issue like Syria with a high priority issue (such as defense of Israel).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 03:05:47 PM
I'm struggling to recall any threats the Soviets made about Berlin or Cuba. They didn't threaten to build a wall, they built a wall. They didn't threaten to blockade, they blockaded. They didn't threaten to ship nukes to Cuba, they shipped nukes to Cuba.
They threatened Berlin during the Cuban Missile crisis. It was part of why JFK made the policy choices he did.
But as an example building the wall was preceded by at least three years of more or less constant public threats by Khrushchev.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 29, 2013, 03:15:06 PM
Credibility is also useful so you can bluff people into doing what you want. If a bluff is ineffective I don't think you should try to save credibility by going all in. Cut your losses and fold is a better strategy.
There is a fundamental game theory difference between diplomacy and (non-tournament) poker. In poker, if someone calls your bluff, you can't really spite him. If you go all-in to double down on your bluff, you just help your opponent even more. You don't have a lose-lose spite option. In diplomacy, you do have it, which changes the calculus rather dramatically.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 03:23:26 PM
They threatened Berlin during the Cuban Missile crisis. It was part of why JFK made the policy choices he did.
But as an example building the wall was preceded by at least three years of more or less constant public threats by Khrushchev.
IIRC the threat was that they would occupy Berlin if the US invaded Cuba, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 03:26:13 PM
IIRC the threat was that they would occupy Berlin if the US invaded Cuba, no?
They threatened that if the US used force at all they'd occupy Berlin. It was taken very seriously in the White House despite, as I say, several years of Soviet bluff over Berlin.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 03:39:23 PM
They threatened that if the US used force at all they'd occupy Berlin. It was taken very seriously in the White House despite, as I say, several years of Soviet bluff over Berlin.
Not sure how you see that as a bluff. Kennedy was presented with a variety of options involving use of force, and settled on an option short of violence, presumably at least in part because he took Kruschev's threat seriously.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 03:47:47 PM
Not sure how you see that as a bluff. Kennedy was presented with a variety of options involving use of force, and settled on an option short of violence, presumably at least in part because he took Kruschev's threat seriously.
As I say the Soviets had been threatening to occupy Berlin over various things since at least 58 - the Berlin ultimatum. Despite never following through that threat was still taken seriously during the Cuban missile crisis.
Then the question is which of those threats had they been called on.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 29, 2013, 03:55:17 PM
Then the question is which of those threats had they been called on.
Well the '58 one obviously. Khrushchev backed down on that one, though he made several other threats along the same lines.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 02:18:59 PM
Credibility is the worst, most anemic argument for doing anything. The US and Obama don't lack credibility, nor would they if they didn't act (except domestically) and it wouldn't matter anyway.
The argument for intervening is that there's punishment for use of chemical weapons. Don't do it again or we'll fuck you up again and maybe more.
I don't disagree that credibility is not a very strong argument for taking an action that could have such large downsides. I don't know that going to war because Assad is not using our preferred weapons system to slaughter his own people is a much better argument.
OK Shelf, maybe the Soviets bluffed and were called. I don't know enough of the particulars to contest.
But you're assuming an all or nothing variable. I.e. if a country bluffs and gets called once, then the future value of their threats drops to zero. That is not the critique of bluffing. Rather that bluffs tend to cause antagonists to discount the value of a threat. In situations when you want to communicate "you really better not use chemical weapons or we will blow up you and your shit with 100% certainty," bluffs cause that threat to devalue to a lower probability.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2013, 02:24:19 PM
I think Obama should consult congress, but he doesn't have to.
He will, and he'll do it just like every other President has since Ford: he'll make phone calls to Hill leadership while the missiles are in the air.
Looks like we won't be taking any military action against Syria any time soon. Both Labour amendment and the original government motion has been defeated. Sounds like this is blow back re Blair's dodgy dossier.
DC said he's going to go along with the vote.
Seems odd that the Brits were so gungho about Libya and so recalcitrant about Syria. The attack on the Benghazi consulate aside, Libya has turned out relatively well.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2013, 05:02:42 PM
Seems odd that the Brits were so gungho about Libya and so recalcitrant about Syria. The attack on the Benghazi consulate aside, Libya has turned out relatively well.
Well, Gaddafyi killed a bunch of British citizens, Assad on the other hand lived in Britain and married a British chick.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2013, 05:02:42 PM
Seems odd that the Brits were so gungho about Libya and so recalcitrant about Syria. The attack on the Benghazi consulate aside, Libya has turned out relatively well.
MPs and their constituents realised there's a difference of scale and difficulty between Libya and Syria.
Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes
'President Obama is ready to pursue a military strike even with a rejection of such action by Britain's Parliament and without an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html)
Ed not have to see that doctor after all
might http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?_r=0
EDIT: Damn you Phil! :shakesfist:
Too Late. I'm in College football mode. BRUTUS IS INFLATED.
Amazing scenes apparently. Michael Gove, Education Secretary, seen in the lobby shouting 'you are a disgrace!' at Tory rebels. His wife (a journalist) tweeted: 'I am SO angry about today's vote. No military action would have come out of it. It was simply about sending a signal. Cowardice.' and 'Pathetic losers who can't see past their own interests.'
From the Press Association:
'Seconds before the result was read out by Speaker John Bercow there was a roar from the opposition benches.
Some MPs loudly shouted "resign" and "go now" at the Government benches after the vote result was read.
Bercow rapped one of the ringleaders, the SNP's Angus MacNeil, saying: "Mr MacNeil, you are like an exploded volcano, erupted, calm yourself man."
Cameron showed little emotion and kept his gaze fixed on the Speaker.
Miliband was then loudly cheered as he took to the Despatch Box.'
This was a bigger government rebellion than the vote that brought down Chamberlain and certainly the first time a government's lost its motion on any non-European foreign policy motion. Given the Labour vote, Cameron was defeated by the Tories. It seems like it should be considered a confidence motion, though I don't think it necessarily is.
Constitutionally this is also huge, I think Parliament's now asserted its role over the executive on war powers. Difficult to see a return to royal prerogative powers. Which constitutionally is a big event :mellow:
We may also see the US and France acting together without Britain. Unbelievable, as commentators have pointed out, that this breach with America came under a Tory friendly with the White House. Right now our foreign policy is insular, obsessed with Europe and kind-of isolationist - we're like the black swan of Germany :(
QuoteSeems odd that the Brits were so gungho about Libya and so recalcitrant about Syria. The attack on the Benghazi consulate aside, Libya has turned out relatively well.
The Commons only voted on Libya the day after action had started. The executive acted and Parliament ratified, it may have been beaten had Cameron asked Parliament for permission first.
But also the congruence of a country in the heart of the Middle East, with a Baathist tyrant and WMD meant that this was really about lots of Commons voting against Iraq in retrospect.
Edit: Cameron's response when Miliband asked him not to use prerogative powers:
QuoteI can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.
Three ministers missed the vote. Ken Clarke for 'logistical reasons', Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds because they didn't hear the division bell. Not that it would've made a difference.
QuoteJustine Greening and Mark Simmonds because they didn't hear the division bell
A mediocre album.
Here's Notts Politics blog on it from before the vote:
QuoteWhy the outcome of the Commons vote on Syria is difficult to predict
It wouldn't take long to describe parliamentary rebellions on British military action so far this parliament. There have only been four Coalition revolts, over three issues: continued British military involvement in Afghanistan in September 2010; whether or not to support UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (on Libya) in March 2011; and the wisdom or otherwise of ruling out military action against Iran in February 2012. Two of these three were debated under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, with Libya debated on the basis of a substantive Government motion. But the largest of these rebellions involved just four Conservative MPs and one Lib Dem, and in total across all three issues, just eight Coalition MPs have broken ranks on matters of war and peace, six Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. So we can be confident that whatever happens tonight we will be able to say that it is the largest rebellion of its type during this Parliament.
The crucial difference with these votes and tonight's is that they all saw the Labour frontbench support the government, as Her Majesty's Official Opposition have in every other vote on military action since Suez in 1956. That the Government cannot rely on Labour support tonight is one reason why the outcome of the votes is so uncertain.
But it is only half of the explanation. The other half is the potential scale of backbench rebellion on the government side. This is a government with a de facto majority of around 80; even without opposition support it should not be in this position. Its difficulties are emphatically not a result of being a coalition. Whilst there will be some Lib Dem opponents, this is not a vote like that over parliamentary boundaries where the Lib Dems will defect en masse. The government's problems are as much with Conservative backbench opponents, of whom there are said to be around 70.
This is just the latest piece of evidence of the steady rise of backbench independence, which we have been tracking over the last decade or more. It did not begin in 2010 – there were plenty of signs of it in both the 2001 and 2005 Parliaments – but there has been a further step change up in the levels of independence being displayed by MPs since the last election. This is a parliament that has seen MPs vote to amend their own government's Queen's Speech. Now they are willing to do the same to its foreign policy. This is parliamentary influence, for good or ill.
That said, we are equally confident that today's rebellions will not top the record set by the Iraq revolts of 2003. Those are the largest rebellions by government MPs of any party, on any subject, since modern British politics began. The largest saw 139 Labour MPs vote against their party's whip. But note that they did not start at 139. The first three rebellions over Iraq numbered 56, 30, and 44 respectively, only rising over 100 in votes in February and then March 2003 on the eve of war. Those early votes saw plenty of MPs express their unhappiness with the idea of military action without voting against their whip. Given that today's vote is explicitly not one to authorise military action, we expect the same today, with MPs uneasy or unhappy taking the opportunity to make it clear how unhappy they are without actually voting against their party.
Will the government lose? Bluntly: they shouldn't. The fact that this is not a vote to authorise conflict will be enough to placate some government MPs, even some with serious reservations. Then there is the fact that there are two votes tonight, one on a Labour amendment, one on the government's own motion.[/i] This gives the whips some room for manoeuvre, with some MPs rebelling over the government motion, others over Labour's amendment, but with each individual revolt smaller than the total number of rebels. Plus, if the issue becomes partisan – as it appears to be doing – that too will make some Conservative MPs uneasy about doing anything to help the opposition. But no one would put much money on a government victory, given events thus far this Parliament.
And if they do lose? When was the last time that happened? That is, as they say, a very good question. We struggle to find a vote lost by the government on military action any time in the last 100 years. For all that people go on about Norway in 1940 or Suez in 1956, the government won both of those votes. The former was enough to bring down a Prime Minister, but the government did still win the vote. We cannot find a comparable vote lost by a government, although our knowledge of the mid-nineteenth century isn't what it was...
Iraq aside, most recent rebellions over military foreign policy, especially on the government side, have been small. Rebellions on the Iraq bombing of 1998 were small (just 22 Government MPs); ditto for Kosovo in 1999 (13) and Afghanistan in 2001 (11). There were some half-decent sized-rebellions amongst Opposition MPs against the first Iraq war in 1990-91, but not amongst government MPs. Iraq is very much the exception.
We suspect tonight's rebellion will surpass these, but fall short of the 139 Iraq rebels. So perhaps the key remaining benchmark is with the vote in 1940, which brought down Neville Chamberlain, when 33 Conservative MPs voted against the Government, together with at least 60 who abstained. If tonight's rebellion is of that magnitude, the vote will be very tight indeed.
The Conservative vote against Cameron tonight was definitely bigger than the government rebellion against Chamberlain :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 04:06:48 PMBut you're assuming an all or nothing variable. I.e. if a country bluffs and gets called once, then the future value of their threats drops to zero. That is not the critique of bluffing. Rather that bluffs tend to cause antagonists to discount the value of a threat. In situations when you want to communicate "you really better not use chemical weapons or we will blow up you and your shit with 100% certainty," bluffs cause that threat to devalue to a lower probability.
Not really. I'm saying the USSR did it repeatedly. Empty threats were a fundamental part of their foreign policy. They never lost credibility when they didn't follow through, because their power was sufficient that any threat is credible. The same is true for the US. I think stating specific steps rather than a general threat would increase credibility rather than just threatening, more seriously.
QuoteI don't disagree that credibility is not a very strong argument for taking an action that could have such large downsides. I don't know that going to war because Assad is not using our preferred weapons system to slaughter his own people is a much better argument.
Going to war's a strong phrase for lobbing a few missiles at their military systems.
Chemical and biological warfare have been viewed with a unique horror since WW1. I think it's a good principle when, as Rupert Smith put it, we're sort of in an era of 'war amongst the people', to have certain weapons that are beyond use.
Some good comments there Shelf.
Yes the apparent triumphing of a parliamentary vote on military action over the royal prerogative is very significant.
I haven't seen the figures yet, but on the government motion didn't something like 70-75 MPs not vote or abstain ?
My own take on this is the hangover from Iraq and to a lesser extent the apparent failure in Afghanistan, directed much of the MPs debate and voting.
Weenies.
I think Shelf is right here. Obama is going to act, not because US credibility is on the line, but his credibility is.
Apparently the last time a PM's recommendation to use force was rejected by Parliament was in 1782 :blink:
That was when the Prime Minister wanted to continue in the American War of Independence and the Commons rejected it :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:09:03 PM
Not really. I'm saying the USSR did it repeatedly. Empty threats were a fundamental part of their foreign policy. They never lost credibility when they didn't follow through, because their power was sufficient that any threat is credible. The same is true for the US. I think stating specific steps rather than a general threat would increase credibility rather than just threatening, more seriously.
My previous post was garbled. What I meant to say is that you're setting up zero credibility following a called bluff as the null hypothesis, and since the USSR had more than zero credibility after a (or repeated) called bluffs, then having one's bluff called has no impact on credibility. This is incorrect.
Take as an example North Korea. Their entire foreign policy is built on bluffing. So when they make a threat, people tend to not take it very seriously.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
Weenies.
It's unbelievable :mellow:
There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in :blink:
Don't know that this'll play well for Labour in the long-run either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 06:20:26 PMTake as an example North Korea. Their entire foreign policy is built on bluffing. So when they make a threat, people tend to not take it very seriously.
Agreed. But I'd argue that's a function of their power, not their credibility.
Quote from: mongers on August 29, 2013, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
Weenies.
It's democracy.
Democracy is no excuse for chaos. In matters of war the whole country should be united.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
Weenies.
It's unbelievable :mellow:
There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in :blink:
Don't know that this'll play well for Labour in the long-run either.
Curious isn't it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
Weenies.
It's unbelievable :mellow:
There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in :blink:
Don't know that this'll play well for Labour in the long-run either.
I see this through the prism of Vietnam, Wilson far sightedly refused to get involved, whereas Australia and New Zealand (SEATO) did. This time the MPs and public choose to make a similar judgement about the likely outcome of war in Syria.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:21:55 PM
Agreed. But I'd argue that's a function of their power, not their credibility.
They have the power to blow Seoul all to shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 06:25:39 PM
They have the power to blow Seoul all to shit.
They have. They would be totally destroyed if they did which changes the balance. Also the nuke is still new so we'll see how that plays out.
But say the US and South Korea were taking action against North Korea, the threat would be far more credible if made by China than North Korea - because of power.
QuoteI see this through the prism of Vietnam, Wilson far sightedly refused to get involved, whereas Australia and New Zealand (SEATO) did. This time the MPs and public choose to make a similar judgement about the likely outcome of war in Syria.
But there's no troops involved. Not everything should be seen through the prism of Vietnam. Our allies want to take an action, supported by our government, that has minimal cost or danger to British forces or interests and we've said no :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:36:01 PM
They have. They would be totally destroyed if they did which changes the balance. Also the nuke is still new so we'll see how that plays out.
But say the US and South Korea were taking action against North Korea, the threat would be far more credible if made by China than North Korea - because of power.
It would be far more credible because China hasn't talked out of it's ass a fraction as much as North Korea has.
By your logic a British threat to respond to an invasion of The Falklands with force would be less credible than a similar US threat. Not true. If the UK issued such a threat my expectation of you guys backing it up would be near 100%. Similarly by your logic a threat from, say, Belgium would be less credible than one from North Korea.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:36:01 PM
But there's no troops involved. Not everything should be seen through the prism of Vietnam. Our allies want to take an action, supported by our government, that has minimal cost or danger to British forces or interests and we've said no :bleeding:
No shit, man. Limited cruise missile strikes are as low a risk statement of force as you can get, and still not adversely alter the strategic situation.
But that's OK; for all the bullshit France always gets from ignorant redneck American zomg-they-surrender-all-teh-time Freedom Fries Guys, France has always been consistent with non-proliferation issues, regardless of the party in charge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 06:45:43 PMBy your logic a British threat to respond to an invasion of The Falklands with force would be less credible than a similar US threat. Not true. If the UK issued such a threat my expectation of you guys backing it up would be near 100%. Similarly by your logic a threat from, say, Belgium would be less credible than one from North Korea.
Exactly, I think both are true. If the US threatened to intervene that would be more credible and more likely to change Argie policy (don't forget the Argentines were amazed the British did respond). Similarly I'd take a North Korean threat as more credible than, say, Switzerland or Belgium making a threat.
QuoteBut that's OK; for all the bullshit France always gets from ignorant redneck American zomg-they-surrender-all-teh-time Freedom Fries Guys, France has always been consistent with non-proliferation issues, regardless of the party in charge.
And they love nothing less than bombing the Levant.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:36:01 PM
QuoteI see this through the prism of Vietnam, Wilson far sightedly refused to get involved, whereas Australia and New Zealand (SEATO) did. This time the MPs and public choose to make a similar judgement about the likely outcome of war in Syria.
But there's no troops involved. Not everything should be seen through the prism of Vietnam. Our allies want to take an action, supported by our government, that has minimal cost or danger to British forces or interests and we've said no :bleeding:
You misunderstand my position, I'm not arguing for or against action, rather I'm seeking to explain what might be the motivation of the electorate and MPs.
And part of that is the fear that this'll be a first or early step in a greater involvement in a future Syrian quagmire.
I think they were voting against Iraq. They were trying to exorcise Blair.
Also I don't think this would've been the result had MPs known it would've been the result. And I think Miliband either lost too much of his shadow cabinet, or he was playing politics :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:55:21 PM
I think they were voting against Iraq. They were trying to exorcise Blair.
......
So you're saying against Blairite agenda?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:48:10 PM
Exactly, I think both are true. If the US threatened to intervene that would be more credible and more likely to change Argie policy (don't forget the Argentines were amazed the British did respond). Similarly I'd take a North Korean threat as more credible than, say, Switzerland or Belgium making a threat.
It's impossible for a country to have less credibility than North Korea.
You seem to be confusing credibility with leverage Shelf. Credibility is the belief you will in fact do what you threaten to do. Can you honestly say that when the UK makes a threat the probability they will carry it out is lower than that of the US?
Er, that was unexpected. That has to sting for Cameron. :blink:
Quote from: mongers on August 29, 2013, 07:01:36 PMSo you're saying against Blairite agenda?
God if only there were still a Blairite agenda on offer :weep:
QuoteYou seem to be confusing credibility with leverage Shelf. Credibility is the belief you will in fact do what you threaten to do.
As I've said I think credibility is a function of power. Which isn't leverage - to my mind that's more to do with what you can offer and threaten.
QuoteCan you honestly say that when the UK makes a threat the probability they will carry it out is lower than that of the US?
Now, even moreso. Though I do love that Attlee line when questioned about entering the Korean war for a 'distant obligation', 'distant, yes; but an obligation nonetheless' :wub:
Well I'll be happy to bet with you the next time North Korea or the UK make a threat Shelf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 07:10:45 PM
Well I'll be happy to bet with you the next time North Korea or the UK make a threat Shelf.
I'll be happy to bet with you the next time Belgium does :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
I'll be happy to bet with you the next time Belgium does :lol:
Absolutely.
Oh shit. Forgot I have 6 quatloos bet with Yi. Thankfully, quatloos are imaginary. :)
Imaginary welcher. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 07:27:03 PM
Imaginary welcher. :mad:
Oh, I'll pay the quatloos. I'd need to get them out of my imaginary wallet.
Good man.
Didn't you and DG have a recent bet about Korea (country thereof) ?
Quote from: mongers on August 29, 2013, 08:01:31 PM
Didn't you and DG have a recent bet about Korea (country thereof) ?
Yes. I crushed my enemy, drove him before me, and heard the lamentations of his women.
So, no lamentations?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
It's unbelievable :mellow:
There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in :blink:
I saw in Le Monde today that there was something around 70% support among
les socialistes for intervention, but only around 45% in the country as a whole.
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2013, 08:06:03 PM
So, no lamentations?
he he
I think technically mothers count.
Wesley Clark is for it, so I'm agin it.
Quote from: Scipio on August 29, 2013, 08:11:41 PM
Wesley Clark is for it, so I'm agin it.
I think he sells cars here in town.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDEIEqmE.jpg&hash=9480321ae20aa4ffd8fac407c3e3665676ef4c62)
Quote from: Scipio on August 29, 2013, 08:11:41 PM
Wesley Clark is for it, so I'm agin it.
Of course you are.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:17:40 PM
Apparently the last time a PM's recommendation to use force was rejected by Parliament was in 1782 :blink:
That was when the Prime Minister wanted to continue in the American War of Independence and the Commons rejected it :blink:
America: a source of humiliations to British PMs for 231 years.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 29, 2013, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
It's unbelievable :mellow:
There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in :blink:
I saw in Le Monde today that there was something around 70% support among les socialistes for intervention, but only around 45% in the country as a whole.
That's called following the party and/or President's line. The conservatives are split and the FN are against it as seen in the Monde article you are referring. Commies and Greens are not mentioned which is a shame since they are not hawks generally, yet allies of Flanby, at least for government positions.
New Europe is getting older it seems, since Poland, among others, is against intervention :D
What's with all this talk of "intervention"? Nobody's intervening anywhere.
:frog: :frog: :frog:
QuoteFrance Backs U.S. on Syria Action
By DAVID JOLLY and SCOTT SAYARE
PARIS — President François Hollande of France on Friday offered strong support for international military action against the Syrian government, supporting the Obama administration just a day after the British Parliament rejected Minister Prime David Cameron's call for intervention.
A chemical attack last week attributed to Syrian forces in the Damascus suburbs by Western powers "must not go unpunished," Mr. Hollande said in an interview with Le Monde, the French daily newspaper. "Otherwise, it would be taking the risk of an escalation that would normalize the use of these weapons and threaten other countries."
A military strike against government targets would have a "dissuasion value" and push the government of President Bashar al-Assad toward a negotiated "political solution" to the conflict, Mr. Hollande said in referring to France's explicitly stated goal.
France has been outspoken in saying the government of Mr. Assad must be punished for the reported poison gas attack last Wednesday, in which hundreds of people were killed. Although Mr. Hollande has presented no specific evidence linking Syrian government to the attacks, he has spoken confidently of its culpability. Parliamentary approval is not required for French military action, and Mr. Hollande has said his government is "prepared to punish" those responsible.
"France possesses a body of evidence that goes in the sense of the regime's responsibility" for the chemical attacks near Damascus, Mr. Hollande said. The use of chemical weapons there is an "established fact," he said, and "it is known that the opposition possesses none of these weapons."
France's determination contrasted sharply with that of Germany. In Berlin, a government spokesman said Friday that "we haven't considered any German military participation and still aren't doing so," The Associated Press reported.
The spokesman, Steffen Seibert, was talking to reporters after Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the daily Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung that Germany had not been asked to contribute to military action.
Mr. Hollande's interview appeared just a day after Mr. David Cameron was handed a stinging rebuke in the House of Commons, where Parliament rejected British military participation in any strike on the Syrian government.
British legislators rejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attack by a vote of 285 to 272, reflecting concerns that there was insufficient evidence that the Aug. 21 attack in the eastern suburbs of Damascus had been carried out by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. Lawmakers were also worried about the strategy behind the call for limited strikes, which they feared could cause an escalation of the conflict and strengthen opposition forces aligned with Al Qaeda.
The Obama administration is nonetheless moving ahead, despite doubts in Congress and among the American public. Pentagon officials said Thursday that the Navy has moved five destroyers, each equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, into the eastern Mediterranean Sea to prepare for a possible strike.
The United States will continue trying to build an international coalition, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday in Manila, the Philippine capital.
"Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together," Mr. Hagel said. "And I think you're seeing a number of countries state, publicly state, their position on the use of chemical weapons."
The British government's decision to forego military action in Syria will not alter France's intention to intervene, Mr. Hollande said in the interview.
"Each country is sovereign to participate or not in an operation," he said.
Mr. Obama has no hope of obtaining a mandate for a military strike in the United Nations Security Council. Russia, Syria's longtime backer, has long opposed military intervention of any sort, and China, which has called for the full results of an investigation by United Nations inspectors before any decision is made, has continued to push for more diplomacy.
George Osborne, chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior politician in Mr. Cameron's Conservative Party, told the BBC on Friday that Parliament's rejection of military action would bring "a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system."
He was optimistic, however, that Britain's "special relationship" with the United States would survive. "There's a bit of hyperbole on this in the last 24 hours", he said. "The relationship with the United States is a very old one, very deep and operates on many layers."
Both Mr. Cameron's government and the Obama administration have said there was little doubt that chemical weapons had been used by government forces. The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the reported attack.
Anxiety is high in Damascus amid fear that a strike could come at any time in the next few days. The United Nations chemical weapons inspection team that has been on the ground in Syria this week was expected to carry out a final day of tests on Friday. The team is scheduled to depart Saturday morning and to brief Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, soon after.
The British Foreign Office on Friday warned its citizens "against all but essential travel" to Lebanon, citing "the recent upsurge in violence and wider regional tensions."
My War Boner.....persists.
At least the French still have a sense of responsibility in maintaining a leadership role in the international community even if the Brits aren't sure who they are anymore.
Osborne's comments were on the mark.
I must admit, the Tory guy screaming at the Tory rebels is hilarious.
Hollande is game even if the crisp-eating surrender monkeys aren't. :frog: ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 04:36:55 AM
What's with all this talk of "intervention"? Nobody's intervening anywhere.
:huh:
A limited strike as a punitive action for the use of chemical weapons is not an intervention, derKissinger.
I have renamed 'Jaffa Cakes' to 'Freedom Cakes'.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 08:20:40 AM
I have renamed 'Jaffa Cakes' to 'Freedom Cakes'.
English Muffins are now Freedom Muffins! USA! USA!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
A limited strike as a punitive action for the use of chemical weapons is not an intervention, derKissinger.
Yes, it is. You may consider it limited intervention, but it's intervention.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2013, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
A limited strike as a punitive action for the use of chemical weapons is not an intervention, derKissinger.
Yes, it is. You may consider it limited intervention, but it's intervention.
S'not. Strikes will not alter, influence or change the outcome of the current conflict or affect the existence of the regime.
Cruise missile strike isn't going to do jack. Might as well do nothing. It's like the Clinton era all over again.
Quote from: Maximus on August 30, 2013, 09:31:08 AM
Cruise missile strike isn't going to do jack. Might as well do nothing. It's like the Clinton era all over again.
And that's the great thing about it: it's low risk with the added PR bonus that "we did something about chemical weapons RAWR".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2013, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
A limited strike as a punitive action for the use of chemical weapons is not an intervention, derKissinger.
Yes, it is. You may consider it limited intervention, but it's intervention.
S'not. Strikes will not alter, influence or change the outcome of the current conflict or affect the existence of the regime.
Doesn't have to be effective to be considered intervention.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 09:37:24 AM
And that's the great thing about it: it's low risk with the added PR bonus that "we did something about chemical weapons RAWR".
No one's buying that. They didn't with Clinton, they won't now.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2013, 09:39:58 AM
Doesn't have to be effective to be considered intervention.
Then by that definition we're already intervening, since we've got multiple levels of ineffective economic and trade sanctions in place against the Syrian government. A few cruise missiles will just be the icing on the cupcake, so you don't have to sweat whether we'd be intervening or not, since we already are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 09:44:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2013, 09:39:58 AM
Doesn't have to be effective to be considered intervention.
Then by that definition we're already intervening, since we've got multiple levels of ineffective economic and trade sanctions in place against the Syrian government. A few cruise missiles will just be the icing on the cupcake, so you don't have to sweat whether we'd be intervening or not, since we already are.
One might say we're intervening indirectly. Launching cruise missiles or dropping bombs and blowing things up is direct intervention.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2013, 09:48:04 AM
One might say we're intervening indirectly. Launching cruise missiles or dropping bombs and blowing things up is direct intervention.
OK, kitten.
:hugz:
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2013, 09:39:58 AM
Doesn't have to be effective to be considered intervention.
You just, like, described the last 50 years of American foreign policy!
That's it. Kerry just waved Uncle Sam's wang on TV.
BONER DEFCON 1.
Quote from: E :mad:d Anger on August 30, 2013, 12:13:25 PM
That's it. Kerry just waved Uncle Sam's wang on TV.
BONER DEFCON 1.
That settle it, you need to get a certificate of sanity from the looney bin before making any life changing decisions. Kerry as rabid warmonger? You might be seeing things that are not there.
Heard Kerry on the Beeb. Shit's going down.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 08:20:40 AM
I have renamed 'Jaffa Cakes' to 'Freedom Cakes'.
'Murica! :lol:
Quote from: Maximus on August 30, 2013, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 09:37:24 AM
And that's the great thing about it: it's low risk with the added PR bonus that "we did something about chemical weapons RAWR".
No one's buying that. They didn't with Clinton, they won't now.
Serbs sure did.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 30, 2013, 12:35:21 PM
Heard Kerry on the Beeb. Shit's going down.
Damascus delenda est? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Serbs sure did.
That was not a few missile strikes. That was a sustained air campaign to destroy the serbs' ability to continue what they were doing. It was a refreshing change for Bill "fire and forget" Clinton.
I guess we'll see where this goes.
Quote from: Maximus on August 30, 2013, 12:45:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
Serbs sure did.
That was not a few missile strikes. That was a sustained air campaign to destroy the serbs' ability to continue what they were doing. It was a refreshing change for Bill "fire and forget" Clinton.
I guess we'll see where this goes.
Funny how history is rewritten.
Anyway, looks like Obama will speak in an hour. I imagine there will be some ultimatum.
I have the Donato site loaded on my iPad. PREPARING TO ORDER PIZZA
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 01:04:55 PM
Anyway, looks like Obama will speak in an hour. I imagine there will be some ultimatum.
"Bring those people back to life or there will be a couple more explosions in your blown-to-shit country"
I don't think you meant ultimatum Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 01:36:29 PM
I don't think you meant ultimatum Raz.
I think I did. "Step down in 48 hours or we will drop bombs" or something like that.
Step down from what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 01:58:16 PM
Step down from what?
A flight of stairs. I don't know what the demands will be, but I imagine there will be some demands and if they are not fulfilled in a certain amount of time bombing will commence. Do you think this is an impossible scenario?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 02:01:27 PM
A flight of stairs. I don't know what the demands will be, but I imagine there will be some demands and if they are not fulfilled in a certain amount of time bombing will commence. Do you think this is an impossible scenario?
I think it's a very strange scenario. Our ostensible motivation for striking is something that has already happened. As Max said, they can't bring the victims back to life. Definitely not in 48 hours.
BBC folks were complaining the the UK wasn't included in the list of allies. Brits can be so needy. :lol:
Ooooooo, the declaration of France as America's oldest ally has some knickers in a twist.
I'm laughing my ass off.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 03:41:17 PM
Ooooooo, the declaration of France as America's oldest ally has some knickers in a twist.
I'm laughing my ass off.
Does that mean no more "freedom fries? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 03:41:17 PM
Ooooooo, the declaration of France as America's oldest ally has some knickers in a twist.
I'm laughing my ass off.
Does that mean no more "freedom fries? :hmm:
French bashing is sooooo 2003.
Quick show of hands: who here has been in a food establishment that actually had "freedom fries" printed on the menu?
I did when I was hanging with CCR way back at his folk's place in western Illinois. The owner was a furriner, which probably explains it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 03:52:26 PM
Quick show of hands: who here has been in a food establishment that actually had "freedom fries" printed on the menu?
I did when I was hanging with CCR way back at his folk's place in western Illinois. The owner was a furriner, which probably explains it.
I saw none.
Quote from: Viking on August 30, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: E :mad:d Anger on August 30, 2013, 12:13:25 PM
That's it. Kerry just waved Uncle Sam's wang on TV.
BONER DEFCON 1.
That settle it, you need to get a certificate of sanity from the looney bin before making any life changing decisions. Kerry as rabid warmonger? You might be seeing things that are not there.
Well, hallucinations are likely when enough blood volume flows away from the brain. Those boners don't sustain themselves.
My war boners and murder boners are frictionless machines.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS8atRfCEAE6ODJ.jpg)
:lol:
I don't think I want a 10 quid holiday. :yuk:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
I don't think I want a 10 quid holiday. :yuk:
Don;t worry, I'm sure after all the fees and extras it will be a lot more than that. :P
QuoteFuneral to be held at The French Embassy
:lol: Awesome. Oh, those whacky Brits.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 30, 2013, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
I don't think I want a 10 quid holiday. :yuk:
Don;t worry, I'm sure after all the fees and extras it will be a lot more than that. :P
Apparently these offers are genuine, you really can get a ten quid holiday, but you have to share the resort with lots of other sun readers. :bowler:
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 04:32:47 PM
My war boners and murder boners are frictionless machines.
Sad that yours aren't big enough to touch the orifice walls in order to generate any friction.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 05:32:48 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS8atRfCEAE6ODJ.jpg)
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2013, 06:01:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 04:32:47 PM
My war boners and murder boners are frictionless machines.
Sad that yours aren't big enough to touch the orifice walls in order to generate any friction.
It's like throwing a frozen Tomahawk cruise missile down a hallway.
Yay, Britain has about as much foreign clout as Lichtenstein. :mad:
You wanna use poison gas to kill off a troublesome local bother, why go right ahead. The UK will send a strongly worded letter, provided Milliband can derive 15 minutes of fame for doing so.
* Personal inclination leans to YES*
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 06:03:03 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2013, 06:01:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 04:32:47 PM
My war boners and murder boners are frictionless machines.
Sad that yours aren't big enough to touch the orifice walls in order to generate any friction.
It's like throwing a frozen Tomahawk cruise missile down a hallway.
:lol:
Even if the British don't, the Washington Post and the Economist still believe in the enforcement of international norms on the use of chemical weapons.
QuoteU.S. must act against crimes against humanity
By Editorial Board, Friday, August 30, 6:52 PM
A PERCEPTION has been growing over the past week that President Obama has worked himself into a jam on Syria policy. We agree that he faces no easy options, and that some of his challenges ensue from his mistakes as well as those of the previous administration. But let's be clear: It's not Mr. Obama, nor George W. Bush, who has brought the United States to this difficult place. It is the crime against humanity allegedly committed by Syria's leader and the fact that no country other than the United States can or will respond fittingly to such a crime.
Possibly the largest constraint Mr. Obama is encountering as he contemplates military action in Syria stems from the intelligence blunder that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it and the governments of all its major allies, was convinced that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Most Americans, including this page, were convinced, too. It is no surprise, and it is not a bad thing, that this time around people are demanding more evidence than they otherwise might.
Mr. Obama also is reaping the fruits of his own advocacy of disengagement from the Middle East. The president repeatedly has told the American people that the era of war was ending, that the United States could concentrate on nation-building at home and that it had no vital interests in Syria as that nation collapsed into civil war and began to endanger its neighbors. Americans, and U.S. allies, too, naturally would want some explanation of why all that may have changed.
The British Parliament's vote against military action has compounded the challenge. This time around, the United States may have few but the French on its side. A president who has stressed commitment to international law is faced with going it nearly alone and certainly without the U.N. Security Council, where Syria's abettors Russia and China stand in the way.
The American people are understandably war-weary, and their Congress reflects that view. But Americans, even when not weary of war, are almost always wary of it, and that is good. It should never be easy to go into battle, even for a "surgical strike" or a "limited engagement." If Mr. Obama chooses to fire missiles at Syria, people will die, including some civilians, and unpredictable consequences will follow. There had better be good reason.
On Friday, Secretary of State John F. Kerry laid out that reason. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Mr. Kerry said, has used against his own people a weapon that for 90 years the international community — sometimes known as the civilized world — has deemed beyond the pale. This was not a question of possibly developing or manufacturing or storing such weapons; it was blatant use, killing or injuring thousands, including, Mr. Kerry said, at least 426 children who died. "f we choose to live in the world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it," Mr. Kerry said, "there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will."
Some ask why the United States should care about 1,400 deaths from gassing when more than 100,000 have died in Syria's war. We're among those who believe the administration should have done more, short of boots on the ground, to forestall those deaths, and we believe that any military action should be part of a strategy to influence the war's outcome.
But these deaths are different. A line has been crossed; if there are no consequences, it will be crossed again. Someday U.S. soldiers on a battlefield could be the victim of the resulting impunity. If the United States does not ensure that Syria faces consequences for crossing the line, no one will, and the U.S. response should be strong enough to prevent Mr. Assad from committing further atrocities. "A lot of people think something should be done," Mr. Obama said Friday, "but nobody wants to do it." He would be right to conclude that, in such circumstances, the United States must.
Quote
Syria
Hit him hard
Present the proof, deliver an ultimatum and punish Bashar Assad for his use of chemical weapons
THE grim spectacle of suffering in Syria—100,000 of whose people have died in its civil war—will haunt the world for a long time. Intervention has never looked easy, yet over the past two and a half years outsiders have missed many opportunities to affect the outcome for the better. Now America and its allies have been stirred into action by President Bashar Assad's apparent use of chemical weapons to murder around 1,000 civilians—the one thing that even Barack Obama has said he would never tolerate.
The American president and his allies have three choices: do nothing (or at least do as little as Mr Obama has done to date); launch a sustained assault with the clear aim of removing Mr Assad and his regime; or hit the Syrian dictator more briefly but grievously, as punishment for his use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Each carries the risk of making things worse, but the last is the best option.
No option is perfect
From the Pentagon to Britain's parliament, plenty of realpolitikers argue that doing nothing is the only prudent course. Look at Iraq, they say: whenever America clumsily breaks a country, it ends up "owning" the problem. A strike would inevitably inflict suffering: cruise missiles are remarkably accurate, but can all too easily kill civilians. Mr Assad may retaliate, perhaps assisted by his principal allies, Iran, Russia and Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shias' party-cum-militia, which is practised in the dark arts of international terror and which threatens Israel with 50,000 rockets and missiles. What happens if Britain's base in Cyprus is struck by Russian-made Scud missiles? Or if intervention leads to some of the chemical weapons ending up with militants close to al-Qaeda? And why further destabilise Syria's neighbours—Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq?
Because doing nothing carries risks that are even bigger (see article). If the West tolerates such a blatant war crime, Mr Assad will feel even freer to use chemical weapons. He had after all stepped across Mr Obama's "red line" several times by using these weapons on a smaller scale—and found that Mr Obama and his allies blinked. An American threat, especially over WMD, must count for something: it is hard to see how Mr Obama can eat his words without the superpower losing credibility with the likes of Iran and North Korea.
And America's cautiousness has cost lives. A year ago, this newspaper argued for military intervention: not for Western boots on the ground, but for the vigorous arming of the rebels, the creation of humanitarian corridors, the imposition of no-fly zones and, if Mr Assad ignored them, an aerial attack on his air-defence system and heavy weaponry. At the time Mr Assad's regime was reeling, most of the rebels were relatively moderate, the death toll was less than half the current total and the conflict had yet to spill into other countries. Some of Mr Obama's advisers also urged him to arm the rebels; distracted by his election, he rebuffed them—and now faces, as he was repeatedly warned, a much harder choice.
So why not do now what Mr Obama should have done then, and use the pretext of the chemical strike to pursue the second option of regime change? Because, sadly, the facts have changed. Mr Assad's regime has become more solid, while the rebels, shorn of Western support and dependent mainly on the Saudis and Qataris, have become more Islamist, with the most extreme jihadis doing much of the fighting. An uprising against a brutal tyrant has kindled a sectarian civil war. The Sunnis who make up around three-quarters of the population generally favour the rebels, whereas many of those who adhere to minority religions, including Christians, have reluctantly sided with Mr Assad. The opportunity to push this war to a speedy conclusion has gone—and it is disingenuous to wrap that cause up with the chemical weapons.
So Mr Obama should focus on the third option: a more limited punishment of such severity that Mr Assad is deterred from ever using WMD again. Hitting the chemical stockpiles themselves runs the risk both of poisoning more civilians and of the chemicals falling into the wrong hands. Far better for a week of missiles to rain down on the dictator's "command-and-control" centres, including his palaces. By doing this, Mr Obama would certainly help the rebels, though probably not enough to overturn the regime. With luck, well-calibrated strikes might scare Mr Assad towards the negotiating table.
Do it well and follow through
But counting on luck would be a mistake, especially in this fortune-starved country. There is no tactical advantage in rushing in: Mr Assad and his friends will have been preparing for contingencies, including ways to hide his offending chemical weapons, for many months. Mr Obama must briskly go through all sorts of hoops before ordering an attack.
The first task is to lay out as precisely as anybody can the evidence, much of it inevitably circumstantial, that Mr Assad's forces were indeed responsible for the mass atrocity. America's secretary of state, John Kerry, was right that Syria's refusal to let the UN's team of inspectors visit the poison-gas sites for five days after the attack was tantamount to an admission of guilt. But, given the fiasco of Iraq's unfound weapons, it is not surprising that sceptics still abound. Mr Obama must also assemble the widest coalition of the willing, seeing that China and Russia, which is increasingly hostile to Western policies (see next leader), are sure to block a resolution in the UN Security Council to use force under Chapter 7. NATO—including, importantly, Germany and Turkey—already seems onside. The Arab League is likely to be squared, too.
And before the missiles are fired, Mr Obama must give Mr Assad one last chance: a clear ultimatum to hand over his chemical weapons entirely within a very short period. The time for inspections is over. If Mr Assad gives in, then both he and his opponents will be deprived of such poisons—a victory for Mr Obama. If Mr Assad refuses, he should be shown as little mercy as he has shown to the people he claims to govern. If an American missile then hits Mr Assad himself, so be it. He and his henchmen have only themselves to blame.
Quote
Assad's forces try to capture gassed Damascus suburb: activists
AMMAN (Reuters) - President Bashar al-Assad's forces fired rocket barrages on Friday at a Damascus suburb hit by nerve gas last week, in another attempt to capture the strategic town ahead of a possible U.S. strike, opposition activists said.
Elite guard units backed by tanks advanced from two directions on the suburb of Mouadamiya, 8 km (5 miles) west of Damascus along the road to the nearby Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, but were met with heavy resistance from two rebel brigades dug in the town, they said.
Four rebel fighters were killed, the opposition sources said. There were no immediate reports of casualties among loyalist forces. Restrictions by Syrian authorities on independent media makes verification difficult.
At least 80 people were killed by a poison gas attack on Mouadamiya on the morning of August 21, an hour after hundreds of people died from a similar attack in eastern neighborhoods of Damascus, according to opposition activists.
The United States made clear on Friday that it would punish Assad for the "brutal and flagrant" chemical attacks that it says killed more than 1,400 people.
Assad has denied using chemical weapons.
His forces have intensified the shelling of Mouadamiya and eastern Damascus neighborhoods since August 21, hoping to drive out rebel brigades, who had encroached on his seat on power in the capital, according to opposition activists.
Mouadamiya borders the Mezze military Airport, a main base for loyalist troops and militia, and the headquarters of the Fourth Mechanised Division, which is headed by Assad's feared brother Maher and comprised mainly of troops from his Alawite minority sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, that has dominated Syria for since the 1960s.
Activist Wassim Ahmad said the missile barrages hitting Mouadamiya were the heaviest since the suburb was besieged by the Fourth Division and Republican Guards units nine months ago.
"It appears the regime is trying to seize Mouadamiya to create a distance between the rebels and the Mezze airport and the Fourth Division, before the American strike makes them more of a threat," he said.
Ahmad said thousands of civilians remained besieged in the suburb, along with the fighters. He added that shelling on Thursday killed three members of the one family. A boy and a girl survived after their father, mother a 12-year-old brother were killed, he said.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 02:05:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 02:01:27 PM
A flight of stairs. I don't know what the demands will be, but I imagine there will be some demands and if they are not fulfilled in a certain amount of time bombing will commence. Do you think this is an impossible scenario?
I think it's a very strange scenario. Our ostensible motivation for striking is something that has already happened. As Max said, they can't bring the victims back to life. Definitely not in 48 hours.
There was an Ultimatum for Libya, an ultimatum for Iraq and an ultimatum for Afghanistan. It's just the way these things are done.
Moar
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS8g3QjCMAE6W2F.jpg)
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Ftheoatmeal-img%2Fcomics%2Fsyria%2Fsyria.png&hash=41e201ab9722b25a759aaf8f09a17c2387335696)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2013, 07:20:45 PM
Moar
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS8g3QjCMAE6W2F.jpg)
:lol:
:pinch: I think they're going to regret that monkey picture, even if they are Murdoch's trash paper.
Assad napalms a school playground :cry:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-reports-of-napalmlike-bomb-attack-on-aleppo-playground-emerge-after-mps-vote-against-military-action-8790841.html
The good news is that Nicole Scherzinger is apparently single. :perv:
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
I like the cut of your jib.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
If you don't put boots on the ground the chances of a quagmire are zero Kelvin. You can walk away from a bombing campaign any time you want to.
But to answer your're question, hell no. We can't afford it.
It is an interesting fact that the British press and Westminster commentariat are infinitely more concerned by the "special relationship" than the public.
Cameron and Clegg did not make a convincing case for military action. It's all well and good to talk of limited punitive strikes, but the reality is that the situation is heavily complicated by the ongoing civil war. The government gave a good reason of why we should take action. But it did not give any indication as to what the intended outcome would be, beyond some waffly notion of "upholding international norms" (through the violation of other international norms, it turns out).
I agree that chemical weapons use is a dangerous crossing of an important red line that must be deterred and punished, but I don't agree that we should rush into action for the sake of credibilty without showing how they fit a strategy of ending the civil war.
There was no need to rush to a vote before the US presented its intelligence assessment, and the UN inspectors returned, other than the narcissistic need for Cameron and the UK to show they were "taking the lead". Ultimately I don't think this incident is a turning point in the "special relationship" or a reflection of the UK's wider posture on the world stage -- it's a reflection of cack-handed domestic politics.
By the way chaps, we're already intervening in Syria. Bombing Assad over CW use is just escalation. Important point.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Quote from: Warspite on August 31, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
It is an interesting fact that the British press and Westminster commentariat are infinitely more concerned by the "special relationship" than the public.
Cameron and Clegg did not make a convincing case for military action. It's all well and good to talk of limited punitive strikes, but the reality is that the situation is heavily complicated by the ongoing civil war. The government gave a good reason of why we should take action. But it did not give any indication as to what the intended outcome would be, beyond some waffly notion of "upholding international norms" (through the violation of other international norms, it turns out).
I agree that chemical weapons use is a dangerous crossing of an important red line that must be deterred and punished, but I don't agree that we should rush into action for the sake of credibilty without showing how they fit a strategy of ending the civil war.
There was no need to rush to a vote before the US presented its intelligence assessment, and the UN inspectors returned, other than the narcissistic need for Cameron and the UK to show they were "taking the lead". Ultimately I don't think this incident is a turning point in the "special relationship" or a reflection of the UK's wider posture on the world stage -- it's a reflection of cack-handed domestic politics.
By the way chaps, we're already intervening in Syria. Bombing Assad over CW use is just escalation. Important point.
Probably because the public at large don't gain a great deal from the special relationship while the government does. I can sympathize not getting involved. I don't want to get involved. Obama is going to intervene because he stuck his dick out.
Quote from: Warspite on August 31, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
It is an interesting fact that the British press and Westminster commentariat are infinitely more concerned by the "special relationship" than the public.
.....
By the way chaps, we're already intervening in Syria. Bombing Assad over CW use is just escalation. Important point.
An good analysis, Warspite.
Quote from: Warspite on August 31, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
I agree that chemical weapons use is a dangerous crossing of an important red line that must be deterred and punished, but I don't agree that we should rush into action for the sake of credibilty without showing how they fit a strategy of ending the civil war.
Bu that's not the issue here. We're talking about bombing the horse, not the cart.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 08:06:59 AM
Quote from: Warspite on August 31, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
I agree that chemical weapons use is a dangerous crossing of an important red line that must be deterred and punished, but I don't agree that we should rush into action for the sake of credibilty without showing how they fit a strategy of ending the civil war.
Bu that's not the issue here. We're talking about bombing the horse, not the cart.
But how do you shut the stable door ?
Well gee, Mr. Peabody, lets go back in time to 1946.
President Obomba will be holding a public statement and remarks in the Rose Garden at 1:15pm today.
Confirmed that he will be conducting a "conference call" with Congress later today.
There's your Whore Powers Act right there.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
How do you define "direct action"?
11Bravo takes his lead straight out of Teabagger Central Casting.
Obama's asking for Congress to give a DOW? :hmm:
What a goddamn pussy.
So, how does this thing work?
LOL, like this is the President to seek Congressional approval for the War Powers Act. Really? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Don't worry, Mr. Cameron, looks like you've got a roommate now!
Looks like the French will have to do another Mali. :lol:
France can't do much about this alone. Mali didn't have the Tsar propping it up.
Meh, it's really not that big of a deal; under the mechanisms WPA, the president is required to consult Congress per Section 3 but they can't bar him from using military force; it's just that he's got 48 hours to inform them of the commencement of hostilities, and the clock for the 60 day limit begins. Since there's no reason to believe it would go past 60 days, no fuss, no muss.
If Congress passes a resolution saying "Bad Obama, Bad", it won't look good, but it can't really stop him, either.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
Meh, it's really not that big of a deal; under the mechanisms WPA, the president is required to consult Congress per Section 3 but they can't bar him from using military force; it's just that he's got 48 hours to inform them of the commencement of hostilities, and the clock for the 60 day limit begins. Since there's no reason to believe it would go past 60 days, no fuss, no muss.
If Congress passes a resolution saying "Bad Obama, Bad", it won't look good, but it can't really stop him, either.
It's a mistake to ask this congress. He'll give them a platform and they'll go on about Benghazi, Obamacare, and Fast and Furious. You'll never get them to shut up.
You go to war with the Congress you have, not the one you wish you had.
On the other hand if he's at best lukewarm about beating Assad up putting this in front of Congress might be smart. If he dosen't get approval, he can say he tried. If he does get it, then he spreads responsibility for the outcome if things don't go well.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:58:37 PM
It's a mistake to ask this congress. He'll give them a platform and they'll go on about Benghazi, Obamacare, and Fast and Furious. You'll never get them to shut up.
They'll just attach an amendment to it prohibiting Federal funding of the Affordable Care Act.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 31, 2013, 02:02:39 PM
On the other hand if he's at best lukewarm about beating Assad up putting this in front of Congress might be smart. If he dosen't get approval, he can say he tried. If he does get it, then he spreads responsibility for the outcome if things don't go well.
I don't think he's capable of such cynical political maneuvering; I honestly think he sincerely believes that if he tries long enough and hard enough, he can actually work with people who hate his fucking guts.
So when's the vote?
Is this a non-binding "sense of the Senate" vote, or formal WPA authorization?
I think Obama is hoping that Congress weasels him out of the commitment, with a side benefit making his opposition look like traitors.
If you were a senator what would you do; vote for authorization and then claim you were lied to if things go wrong or vote against and then say "I told you so," if things go wrong?
If you want to run for president I think you have to do the latter. No one will remember if this only lasts an hour or two, and if it does fall apart you'll be a genius.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2013, 02:42:14 PM
I think Obama is hoping that Congress weasels him out of the commitment, with a side benefit making his opposition look like traitors.
Or making it look like they're into hugging children with chemical weapons.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 31, 2013, 03:16:19 PM
If you were a senator what would you do; vote for authorization and then claim you were lied to if things go wrong or vote against and then say "I told you so," if things go wrong?
If you want to run for president I think you have to do the latter. No one will remember if this only lasts an hour or two, and if it does fall apart you'll be a genius.
I would vote against, on the grounds that it doesn't advance US interests, and that if gas is an international war crime the response should be international, not two guys.
I think I owe Yi 6 quatloos.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2013, 03:42:48 PM
I think I owe Yi 6 quatloos.
If you're imaginary hard up right now I can imaginary let it slide.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2013, 03:40:45 PM
I would vote against, on the grounds that it doesn't advance US interests, and that if gas is an international war crime the response should be international, not two guys.
I said if you were a senator not a principled person; the two terms are antonyms.
;)
(Edit: I didn't intend to make the above statement sound as though I thought Yi was unprincipled; just senators...)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2013, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2013, 03:42:48 PM
I think I owe Yi 6 quatloos.
If you're imaginary hard up right now I can imaginary let it slide.
Nah, I will pay it from my imaginary quatloos safe.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 31, 2013, 03:46:57 PM
I said if you were a senator not a principled person; the two terms are antonyms.
If I was guided only by political calculations I would probably vote for.
As I said earlier to Grallon
(
G.)
the odds of quagmirification are zero. International and domestic professional bitches could bitch about advancing jihadism or taking sides or whatever, but they'll bitch regardless of what we do or don't do. I think punishing use of chemical weapons is a very easy sell on the campaign trail.
If the US doesn't invade Syria now people might think that the Iraq invasion wasn't about WMDs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2013, 02:39:35 PM
Is this a non-binding "sense of the Senate" vote, or formal WPA authorization?
This would be for the Congressional blessing of non-binding "harumphs", from what I've read today; WPA would kick in after the shooting starts.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 12:00:38 PM
11Bravo takes his lead straight out of Teabagger Central Casting.
I sorry. You know, deep down, he is just going to puss out.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:09:20 PM
You know, deep down, he is just going to puss out.
What do you care?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 12:00:38 PM
11Bravo takes his lead straight out of Teabagger Central Casting.
I sorry. You know, deep down, he is just going to puss out.
Actually I hope he does. The Syrians aren't worth the bombs we drop on them.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Sure. You go online, ask someone for their address, and mail them a check.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:09:20 PM
You know, deep down, he is just going to puss out.
What do you care?
The it shouldnt be an issue for you then.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:09:20 PM
You know, deep down, he is just going to puss out.
What do you care?
The it shouldnt be an issue for you then.
Whether or not you care, no, it isn't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 07:14:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:09:20 PM
You know, deep down, he is just going to puss out.
What do you care?
The it shouldnt be an issue for you then.
Whether or not you care, no, it isn't.
Then why ask?
Why not?
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Yeah, a month sounds good. Overt military action in the month of September.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 08:16:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Yeah, a month sounds good. Overt military action in the month of September.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
What?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 08:16:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Yeah, a month sounds good. Overt military action in the month of September.
Deal
:cry:
Obama seems to be looking for an out, so he can get away without doing anything and blame it congress. Then he could say, "I wanted to help, but the GOP wouldn't let me."
I wonder if the House will approve an attack just to spite him? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2013, 08:17:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 08:16:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Yeah, a month sounds good. Overt military action in the month of September.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
What happened to your eyes? :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2013, 02:08:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2013, 08:17:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 08:16:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Yeah, a month sounds good. Overt military action in the month of September.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
What happened to your eyes? :(
Oh nothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2013, 02:09:34 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2013, 02:08:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2013, 08:17:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 08:16:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2013, 05:21:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 31, 2013, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
So my American friends - are you ready for yet another round in the the middle-eastern quagmire? Obama should detonate a nuke high above Damascus - as a warning.
G.
He will do nothing.
I bet the admit the Obama administration will take some form of military action. You wanna take that bet.
Has to be direct action. What you want to bet?
Obama is all bluster and his own party wont back him.
Define "direct action"
or in other words "Overt".
i.e.
airstrike or any air to ground strike. manned or unmanned
tomahawk or other surface to surface missle strike
combat troops on the ground
Does not include SF type raids.
What if they make a big deal out of SF raids? Well that's fairly unlikely, I'll put down 20 bucks. I don't know how I'll pay you. I think Yi knows how to shift money from individuals on the net.
Time Frame. week, month. I would suggest not over a month.
Deal?
Languish still take donations?
Yeah, a month sounds good. Overt military action in the month of September.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
What happened to your eyes? :(
Oh nothing.
What's all this then?
I wish the Iowas were still in service. They would be the perfect weapon for this. Rundning up and down the coast lobbying 16in shells at the Syrian army and shooting cruise missiles at targets further inland. They could stay there for as long as they wanted to and the risk of own casualties would be practically nil.
Quote from: Bluebook on September 01, 2013, 03:02:55 AM
I wish the Iowas were still in service. They would be the perfect weapon for this. Rundning up and down the coast lobbying 16in shells at the Syrian army and shooting cruise missiles at targets further inland. They could stay there for as long as they wanted to and the risk of own casualties would be practically nil.
Al-Nusra thanks you for your support
Yawn
I guess Yi wanted one of those complex odds things he does with Dguller.
Quote from: Bluebook on September 01, 2013, 03:02:55 AM
I wish the Iowas were still in service. They would be the perfect weapon for this. Rundning up and down the coast lobbying 16in shells at the Syrian army and shooting cruise missiles at targets further inland. They could stay there for as long as they wanted to and the risk of own casualties would be practically nil.
But hey, the fancy, new Littoral Combat Ships don't even meet the Navy's survivability testing standards. Swell.
http://blog.usni.org/2011/01/02/the-lcs-is-not-expected-to-be-survivable-in-a-hostile-combat-environment
(https://sphotos-b-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1176183_386267404830024_1039078587_n.jpg)
I don't think he joined up to fight for Hezbollah, either. But hey.
We know why people join the Navy.
QuoteDeployed to the Mediterranean today are the destroyers USS Stout, USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry and USS Ramage, each carrying dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles. Also available is the amphibious transport USS San Antonio, which is carrying about 700 troops from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, along with some of their aircraft and amphibious equipment.
Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2013, 08:15:08 AM
We know why people join the Navy.
QuoteStrategyPage's Military Jokes and Military Humor
Return to Humor Index
How to Simulate Being in the Navy
Some Ways For Old Salts to Simulate Being in the Navy
1. Lock all friends and family outside. Your only means of communication should be with letters that your neighbours have held for at least three weeks, discarding two of five.
2. Surround yourself with 200 people that you don't really know or like: people who smoke, snore like Mack trucks going uphill, and use foul language like a child uses sugar on cereal.
3. Unplug all radios and TVs to completely cut yourself off from the outside world. Have a neighbour bring you a Time, Newsweek, or Proceedings from five years ago to keep you abreast of current events.
4. Monitor all home appliances hourly, recording all vital information (ie: plugged in, lights come on when doors open, etc)
5. Do not flush the toilet for five days to simulate the smell of 40 people using the same commode.
6. Lock the bathroom twice a day for a four hour period.
7. Wear only military uniforms. Even though nobody cares, clean and press one dress uniform and wear it for 20 minutes.
8. Cut your hair weekly, making it shorter each time, until you look bald or look like you lost a fight with a demented sheep.
9. Work in 19-hour cycles, sleeping only four hours at a time, to ensure that your body does not know or even care if it is day or night.
10. Listen to your favourite CD 6 times a day for two weeks, then play music that causes acute nausea until you are glad to get back to your favourite CD.
11. Cut a twin mattress in half and enclose three sides of your bed. Add a roof that prevents you from sitting up (about 10 inches is a good distance) then place it on a platform that is four feet off the floor. Place a small dead animal under the bed to simulate the smell of your bunkmate's socks.
12. Set your alarm to go off at 10 minute intervals for the first hour of sleep to simulate the various times the watchstanders and nightcrew bump around and wake you up. Place your bed on a rocking table to ensure you are tossed around the remaining three hours. Make use of a custom clock that randomly simulates fire alarms, police sirens, helicopter crash alarms, and a new-wave rock band.
13. Have week old fruit and vegetables delivered to your garage and wait two weeks before eating them.
14. Prepare all meals blindfolded using all the spices you can grope for, or none at all. Remove the blindfold and eat everything in three minutes.
15. Periodically, shut off all power at the main circuit breaker and run around shouting "fire, fire, fire" and then restore power.
16. At least once a month, force the commode to overflow to simulate a 'black water system' boo-boo.
17. Buy a gas mask and smear it with rancid animal fat. Scrub the faceshield with steel wool until you can no longer see out of it. Wear this for two hours every fifth day especially when you are in the bathroom.
18. Study the owner's manual for all household appliances. Routinely take an appliance apart and put it back together.
19. Remove all plants, pictures and decorations. Paint everything gray, white, or the shade of hospital smocks.
20. Buy 50 cases of toilet paper and lock up all but two rolls. Ensure one of these two rolls is wet all the time.
21. Smash your forehead or shins with a hammer every two days to simulate collision injuries sustained onboard Navy ships.
22. When making sandwiches, leave the bread out for six days, or until it is hard and stale.
23. Every 10 weeks, simulate a visit to another port. Go directly to the city slums wearing your best clothes. Find the worst looking place, and ask for the most expensive beer that they carry. Drink as many as you can in four hours. Take a cab home taking the longest possible route. Tip the cabby after he charges you double because you dress funny and don't speak right.
24. Use fresh milk for only two days after each port visit.
25. Keep the bedroom thermostat at 2 deg C and use only a thin blanket for warmth.
26. Ensure that the water heater is connected to a device that provides water at a flow rate that varies from a fast drip to a weak trickle, with the temperature alternating rapidly from -2 to 95 deg C.
27. Use only spoons which hold a minimum of 1/2 cup at a time.
28. Repaint the interior of your home every month, whether it needs it or not.
29. Remind yourself every day: 'it's not just a job, it's an adventure!'
30. Mix kerosene with your water supply to simulate the de-sal plant on the ship picking up JP5 in the intake -- if a lit match thrown into your coffee pot doesn't ignite it, add more kerosene.
31. Stand outside at attention at dawn and have the poorest reader you know read the morning paper outloud. Be sure to have him skip over anything pertinent.
32. Every four hours, check the fluid level in your car's radiator. Check the tire pressure and replace air lost from excessive pressure checks. Be sure to place red tag on ignition stating "DANGER: DO NOT OPERATE" while you perform these checks. Inform your neighbor as to the results of these checks, have him tell you to repeat the checks because he did not see you perform them.
33. Paint your house grey (exterior) include windows except for rooms you do not frequent, paint your car grey, paint your driveway a different shade of grey.
34. Wait outside your dining area as a family member eats a meal, then have that person serve you a meal prepared several hours earlier.
35. Shut all blinds and doors at sunset.
36. Clean your house 'till there's absolutely not a speck of dust anywhere. Call on a stranger to come inspect your house. Ensure stranger sees dust that has collected in the time it took to find him. Stranger cannot leave until he finds irrational fault with your house/belongings.
37. Hang Christmas lights in June. When the neighbors ask, say, "deceptive lighting."
38. Hang white lights when relatives visit. When neighbors ask, say, "friendship lights."
That's Grumbler's house. Every day.
Lulz
QuoteFormer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is condemning potential American military action in Syria, charging it would be President Obama "saving political face" and saying, "Let Allah sort it out."
"So we're bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I'm the idiot?" Palin wrote in a Facebook message to her followers on Friday, before the president said Saturday that he would seek Congressional approval.
"Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his 'red line' promise regarding chemical weapons," she added.
At the top of the Facebook post, Palin wrote: "LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT."
She can see Allah from Alaska.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
Lulz
QuoteMme. Sarah Palin is condemning potential French military action in America, charging it would be "saving political face" and saying, "Let the King sort it out."
"So we're fighting England because England is fighting England? And I'm the idiot?" Palin wrote...
Food for thought.
Also, yes. Yes, she is the idiot.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2013, 10:36:01 AM
"So we're fighting England because England is fighting England? And I'm the idiot?" Palin wrote...
[/quote]
Let Divine Providence Sort It Out!
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
Todd would have made an excellent hostess.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
Lulz
QuoteFormer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is condemning potential American military action in Syria, charging it would be President Obama "saving political face" and saying, "Let Allah sort it out."
"So we're bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I'm the idiot?" Palin wrote in a Facebook message to her followers on Friday, before the president said Saturday that he would seek Congressional approval.
"Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his 'red line' promise regarding chemical weapons," she added.
At the top of the Facebook post, Palin wrote: "LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT."
She needs to hire a new guy to write on her hand.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
It's not like the post of Vice-President has always been covered with glory. For every great statesman like Nixon, Johnson, Ford or Bush, you have dismal villains like Burr, Andrew Johnson, Wallace, Agnew or Jefferson, or mediocrities like Dan Quayle or Al Gore. At least Palin wouldn't kill any members of cabinet.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
I was pro-McCain right up until the moment I found out who she was. Not just who she was and what she stood for but also her apparent lack of ability (though I had turned before that became obvious).
:lol:
The idea that Viking was ever on the side of a party whose supporters are largely religious strikes me as funny.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 07:58:15 AM
I don't think he joined up to fight for Hezbollah, either. But hey.
He joined up to follow orders. You don't get to pick who you fight.
"President Obama commands and we obey
Over the hills and far away."
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:19:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
It's not like the post of Vice-President has always been covered with glory. For every great statesman like Nixon, Johnson, Ford or Bush, you have dismal villains like Burr, Andrew Johnson, Wallace, Agnew or Jefferson, or mediocrities like Dan Quayle or Al Gore. At least Palin wouldn't kill any members of cabinet.
We had some mediocrities in the VP seat, but we didn't have people utterly unfit for the office. IMO, McCain canceled out whatever patriotism credentials he had from spending time in a POW camp by putting his country into a very remote, but very real danger like that. Our system is robust enough to function with less than gifted people on top, but some minimum competency is required there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 06:51:27 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on September 01, 2013, 03:02:55 AM
I wish the Iowas were still in service. They would be the perfect weapon for this. Rundning up and down the coast lobbying 16in shells at the Syrian army and shooting cruise missiles at targets further inland. They could stay there for as long as they wanted to and the risk of own casualties would be practically nil.
But hey, the fancy, new Littoral Combat Ships don't even meet the Navy's survivability testing standards. Swell.
http://blog.usni.org/2011/01/02/the-lcs-is-not-expected-to-be-survivable-in-a-hostile-combat-environment
A navy without battleships is vulnerable. But still more useful than the USAF.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:19:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
It's not like the post of Vice-President has always been covered with glory. For every great statesman like Nixon, Johnson, Ford or Bush, you have dismal villains like Burr, Andrew Johnson, Wallace, Agnew or Jefferson, or mediocrities like Dan Quayle or Al Gore. At least Palin wouldn't kill any members of cabinet.
We had some mediocrities in the VP seat, but we didn't have people utterly unfit for the office. IMO, McCain canceled out whatever patriotism credentials he had from spending time in a POW camp by putting his country into a very remote, but very real danger like that. Our system is robust enough to function with less than gifted people on top, but some minimum competency is required there.
:rolleyes:
Alaska didn't fall into the ocean or invade Japan. She can't be that bad.
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 05:46:23 PM
Alaska didn't fall into the ocean or invade Japan. She can't be that bad.
In spite of the fact that Godzilla makes his home there. /Brain
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:19:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
I still shudder when I think that we almost had this piece of trash as a vice president. I mean, seriously.
It's not like the post of Vice-President has always been covered with glory. For every great statesman like Nixon, Johnson, Ford or Bush, you have dismal villains like Burr, Andrew Johnson, Wallace, Agnew or Jefferson, or mediocrities like Dan Quayle or Al Gore. At least Palin wouldn't kill any members of cabinet.
We had some mediocrities in the VP seat, but we didn't have people utterly unfit for the office. IMO, McCain canceled out whatever patriotism credentials he had from spending time in a POW camp by putting his country into a very remote, but very real danger like that. Our system is robust enough to function with less than gifted people on top, but some minimum competency is required there.
On the plus side, she probably would have just gotten bored and quit after a few months.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2013, 04:36:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 07:58:15 AM
I don't think he joined up to fight for Hezbollah, either. But hey.
He joined up to follow orders. You don't get to pick who you fight.
"President Obama commands and we obey
Over the hills and far away."
Agree.
Syria is mocking US for backing down: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130902.
I'm not sure how wise it is to mock United States and question its resolve. :hmm:
:lmfao: Just kidding, what are we going to do about it, seriously?
We're going to allow the American people to determine a course of action through their elected officials, who will ensure that any action against Syria is aligned with the expressed will of the American electorate; namely, the use of force against Syria will be contingent upon the repeal of Obamacare, the freezing of the debt ceiling and impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States. All in one, big explosion of democracy.
Does the House have to OK a WPA authorization? I wikied but the article was inconclusive. I thought for GWII Bush only got a vote from the Senate.
And that's leaving aside the issue that WPA still lets Obama blow up people for 60 days free of charge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2013, 09:05:43 PM
And that's leaving aside the issue that WPA still lets Obama blow up people for 60 days free of charge.
And that's why I think Obama is punting. He either doesn't really want to do it, and wants to use the "I talked to my manager, and he says I can't" card, or he cares so little about doing it that he doesn't mind playing a round or two of political games with it.
IIRC, the Congressional Blessing needs to be a joint resolution or joint bill for the "statutory authorization" part of the WPA. And yeah, it's 60 days free, but Congress can tack on 30 days or extend it to a certain limit.
Hell, Reagan didn't bother going to Congress about Lebanon, and they wound up passing a bill capping the deployment at 18 months.
Well I can sort of understand. There is a legitimate argument that intervening in Syria is a bad idea. It's just a shame that the Republicans won't be caring about it, and that they'll obstruct because they hate the President and are evil. Sort of like the Democrats did with Nixon in the 70s.
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
:lol:
The idea that Viking was ever on the side of a party whose supporters are largely religious strikes me as funny.
I am a classical liberal. McCain was the best man for a classical liberal. He is also a honourable, decent and capable man who identified the agents of intolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24sat2.html?_r=0) and actively opposed them. He was specifically and explicitly against the "largely religious" nutjobs that have no taken over the party and turned it into a joke. By picking her he shamed himself and compromised his own values.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
:lol:
The idea that Viking was ever on the side of a party whose supporters are largely religious strikes me as funny.
I am a classical liberal. McCain was the best man for a classical liberal. He is also a honourable, decent and capable man who identified the agents of intolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24sat2.html?_r=0) and actively opposed them. He was specifically and explicitly against the "largely religious" nutjobs that have no taken over the party and turned it into a joke. By picking her he shamed himself and compromised his own values.
I beg to differ. McCain is not the typical GOP nutcase, but he is a nutcase in his own unique way. Even without Sarah Palin as a VP pick he would've been a terrifying and horrible president.
We have to be careful not to split the world into the fascist/theocratic wing of the GOP, and everyone else. There is more than one flavor of dangerous nuttery. McCain is far too reckless, and picking Palin was just a symptom of his poor impulse control and decision-making ability.
MCain never got over the treachery of 2000, and went a lil' mental.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
MCain never got over the treachery of 2000, and went a lil' mental.
Yeah, that push polling thing was shitty. It's not like he was the only one who went a bit crazy after that election though.
McCain '08 was a substantially different candidate than he was in 2000, as was Dole '96 from Dole '88. Running in the middle doesn't work? Tack hard to the right.
Even Democrats learn to tack to the right, like Gore 2000, who was much more conservative than his platform in '88, and even the '92 primaries.
Gore '88 was pro-life. :contract:
That was just an aberration. Sorta like Tipper and hating the music I listened to in junior high school.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
:lol:
The idea that Viking was ever on the side of a party whose supporters are largely religious strikes me as funny.
I am a classical liberal. McCain was the best man for a classical liberal. He is also a honourable, decent and capable man who identified the agents of intolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24sat2.html?_r=0) and actively opposed them. He was specifically and explicitly against the "largely religious" nutjobs that have no taken over the party and turned it into a joke. By picking her he shamed himself and compromised his own values.
+1
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 10:49:16 PM
McCain '08 was a substantially different candidate than he was in 2000, as was Dole '96 from Dole '88. Running in the middle doesn't work? Tack hard to the right.
Even Democrats learn to tack to the right, like Gore 2000, who was much more conservative than his platform in '88, and even the '92 primaries.
Yeah, I know. I liked McCain in 2000. Campaign finance is one my pet issues. The constant fund raising is a fucking pain. If I had my way, we'd do it like the Brits and have the government do it for the short period before the election.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
:lol:
The idea that Viking was ever on the side of a party whose supporters are largely religious strikes me as funny.
I am a classical liberal. McCain was the best man for a classical liberal. He is also a honourable, decent and capable man who identified the agents of intolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24sat2.html?_r=0) and actively opposed them. He was specifically and explicitly against the "largely religious" nutjobs that have no taken over the party and turned it into a joke. By picking her he shamed himself and compromised his own values.
He believes in a god. You are utterly incapable of liking him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
MCain never got over the treachery of 2000, and went a lil' mental.
Went? :lol:
Well, now I'm conflicted. I don't want the US to get involved as I don't see much good coming from it, on the other hand, I get 20 bucks if they do. This must be how Republicans feel when their "feel good" tax cuts create massive deficits.
Summary: The "Red Line" has become the "Red State Line".
Quote from: derspiess on September 02, 2013, 06:34:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
MCain never got over the treachery of 2000, and went a lil' mental.
Went? :lol:
He was fine until he ran into the Bush Smear Machine(tm). Just ask Bob Dole.
From a Brit paper that wants me to pay:
QuoteBritish military chiefs are being ejected from US meetings about Syria in the first direct consequence of David Cameron's refusal to join military action.
The role of senior British officers based at US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, has been downgraded because they cannot be trusted with high-level intelligence about a conflict with which they are no longer involved, military sources say.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: LOL, fucking awesome.
It's need-to-know information, and you don't need to know.
EMERGERD, TEH SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP!
What's more, they've changed the continental breakfast spread to croissants. :frog:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 08:15:10 PM
What's more, they've changed the continental breakfast spread to croissants. :frog:
how austrian :p
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2013, 08:01:27 PM
From a Brit paper that wants me to pay:
QuoteBritish military chiefs are being ejected from US meetings about Syria in the first direct consequence of David Cameron's refusal to join military action.
The role of senior British officers based at US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, has been downgraded because they cannot be trusted with high-level intelligence about a conflict with which they are no longer involved, military sources say.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's fantastic.
Once again, French HUMINT totally smokes the CIA.
QuoteFrench Spies Provide New Details on Assad's Chemical Weapons Program
Posted By David Kenner Tuesday, September 3, 2013 - 5:49 AM
As Congress debates whether to authorize a military strike on Syria, the French government has released its declassified intelligence report on the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the eastern Damascus suburbs.
France, the United States' only remaining potential partner for military intervention in Syria, agrees in broad strokes with the White House's view of the attack. Both governments present evidence that the Syrian regime launched chemical weapons on rebel-held neighborhoods, likely killing over 1,000 people. But in terms of its level of detail, the French report puts the U.S. intelligence assessment to shame.
While the American report focuses solely on the most recent attack, the French provide a comprehensive look at the nature of the Syrian chemical weapons program. It includes a breakdown of the toxic agents that President Bashar al-Assad's regime is believed to have obtained: Hundreds of tons of mustard gas, tens of tons of VX gas, and several hundred tons of sarin gas.
Assad's sarin stockpiles, which is the United States says were used in the Aug. 21 attack, reveal a "technological mastery" of chemical weapons, according to the French. The sarin is stored in binary form - the two chemical precursors necessary to make the gas are kept separate, and only mixed immediately before use. This technological sophistication may be a key point when the U.N. investigators report on the Damascus attack: If they find that the toxic agent was an advanced form of sarin - containing chemical stabilizers and dispersal agents - the weapon will most likely have come from Syrian regime stockpiles.
While U.S. officials have conceded that they don't know if Assad himself ordered the use of chemical weapons, the French assessment rebuts claims that the Aug. 21 attack could have been the work of a rogue officer. France traces Syria's chemical weapons program to "Branch 450" of the innocuously named Center of Scientific Studies and Research, which Israel bombed in May. Only Assad and top members of his regime, the report says, have authority to order the branch to employ its deadly weapons. Nor does the report give credence to the idea of a rogue element within Branch 450 itself: The unit, it says, is "composed solely of Alawite military personnel...[and] distinguished by a high level of loyalty to the regime."
Like the United States, the French relied on Youtube videos of the Aug. 21 attack for clues as to what occurred - and even published six of the videos used in its analysis. The French were only able to confirm 281 casualties from the attack using open-source videos, far less than the 1,429 deaths that the U.S. assessment claims. However, the French report says that its modeling efforts, which attempt to project the full impact of the strike, are consistent with the higher death toll.
One of the biggest mysteries of this episode is why Assad would risk the ire of the United States by using chemical weapons. While some analyses suggested the rebels were making gains in Damascus, the conventional wisdom was that Assad was making military progress without the use of chemical weapons. The French report, however, suggests that Assad's position in the capital was weaker than had been supposed: "Our information confirms that the regime feared a large-scale opposition attack in Damascus," the assessment reads. The attack, it says, was intended to "secure strategic sites" that would allow Assad to control the capital, such as the Mezze military airport.
Following Aug. 21, the French claim that Assad embarked on a massive cover-up to conceal the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian military launched ground and air strikes on the eastern Damascus suburbs and denied investigators access to the area in the days following the attack, the report says. It also accuses Syrian soldiers of starting fires to "purify the atmosphere" of toxic agents. Such actions, the French assessment states, "confirm a clear intention of destroying evidence."
The French report may not change anyone's basic understanding of the Aug. 21 attack. But for those of us who try to understand the scope of the Syrian chemical weapons program, how it is operated, and the regime's assessment of its own strength, it contains clues that will be useful long after the current debate ends.
http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers_joints/syrie_synthese_nationale_de_renseignement_declassifie_02_09_2013.pdf
I disagree. I think they could. :frog:
Quote'France cannot go in alone' on Syria, official says
By Nancy Ing and F. Brinley Bruton, NBC News
PARIS - A French official said his country would not act alone against Syria after President Barack Obama said he would seek approval from Congress before launching any military action to punish the government of Bashar Assad for a gas attack that killed hundreds, making Paris the last main ally in the coalition to back off an immediate attack.
"France cannot go in alone," French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said in a radio interview amid growing pressure on President Francois Hollande to put the question of intervention to a vote in French parliament. "A coalition is necessary."
"We are entering a new phase. We now have some time and with this time, we must put it to good use so that things move," he added.
The statement followed several days of prevarication among supporters of Western military intervention.
Only hours after Secretary of State John Kerry called Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused the government of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, President Barack Obama changed his mind about when and how to intervene.
On Saturday, Obama announced that he would seek approval from Congress before launching any military action against Syria. The move surprised many of his own advisers as well as military analysts who predicted U.S. Navy ships were on the brink of firing missiles into areas around Damascus.
In a shock vote on Thursday, Britain's parliament rejected a proposal for military action in Syria.
Despite saying France needed to wait, Valls said that Assad needed to be punished.
"Chemical massacre by Damascus cannot go unpunished and the determination of the President of the Republic is intact," he said. "To gas a population constitutes a crime against humanity and it would be worse to do nothing."
Also on Sunday, a Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria "the start of the historic American retreat," according to The Associated Press.
It's nice to know that someone in Europe can get their shit together.
I'm beginning to favor intervention. Sorry Assad, I love you man, but gas is a no-no.
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2013, 08:33:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2013, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 03:47:20 PM
:lol:
The idea that Viking was ever on the side of a party whose supporters are largely religious strikes me as funny.
I am a classical liberal. McCain was the best man for a classical liberal. He is also a honourable, decent and capable man who identified the agents of intolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24sat2.html?_r=0) and actively opposed them. He was specifically and explicitly against the "largely religious" nutjobs that have no taken over the party and turned it into a joke. By picking her he shamed himself and compromised his own values.
He believes in a god. You are utterly incapable of liking him.
ah, sigh, but just to clarify this, belief in god isn't the issue, acting in a professional capacity as a believer isn't. McCain is a functional atheist (i.e. secular) as a senator, which is what the constitution demands. I don't mind Clinton, Obama, Ford, Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy and Truman belonging to religions. It is just that they conducted their office in a secular manner. Seriously, Nixon was a Quaker and nothing in his professional career suggests that his religion had any effect on his policy.
Yeah, there's not indication that a guy who puts "In God we Trust" on the coinage is influenced by religion.
Syrian refugees have nearly increased tenfold from 230,670 a year ago to over 2 million today.
http://www.unhcr.org/522495669.html
For those keeping track - the Danes (Social-Democrat prime minister, by the way) are saying that "we trust our closest allies - the US and France - when they say that they have evidence of chemical attacks by Assad; thus we are ready to support a military strike."
Shifty Danes.
Danes are little Barney Badasses.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
For those keeping track - the Danes (Social-Democrat prime minister, by the way) are saying that "we trust our closest allies - the US and France - when they say that they have evidence of chemical attacks by Assad; thus we are ready to support a military strike."
excellent. While the Danes are distracted Canada will take back our damn island.
Canadians. :rolleyes:
Eggplants. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2013, 08:30:34 PM
Canadians. :rolleyes:
Eggplants. :rolleyes:
hey, we can't all bomb us some Muslims, we have to take what we can get. in Canada's case, that's a frozen island. let us have our dignity.
Quote from: HVC on September 03, 2013, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2013, 08:30:34 PM
Canadians. :rolleyes:
Eggplants. :rolleyes:
hey, we can't all bomb us some Muslims, we have to take what we can get. in Canada's case, that's a frozen island. let us have our dignity.
Dignity? After inflicting LEN on the republic?
CANADA DELENDA EST
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2013, 08:34:43 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 03, 2013, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2013, 08:30:34 PM
Canadians. :rolleyes:
Eggplants. :rolleyes:
hey, we can't all bomb us some Muslims, we have to take what we can get. in Canada's case, that's a frozen island. let us have our dignity.
Dignity? After inflicting LEN on the republic?
CANADA DELENDA EST
L A T E R that week. god dammit, now that song is stuck in my head.
:lol: :nelson:
I wonder when Ed's daughters are going to fall in love with Bieber?
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2013, 08:39:37 PM
I wonder when Ed's daughters are going to fall in love with Bieber?
He'll be dead by the time they enter the screaming phase.
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2013, 08:39:37 PM
I wonder when Ed's daughters are going to fall in love with Bieber?
Pfft, it's all One direction now, olds :rolleyes:
Tweens should not be allowed to listen to music.
I see no obstacles for France in prosecuting any punitive strikes against Syria on her own, should she choose to do so. Granted, not at the tempo or to the degree of the US, but it wouldn't take much against Syria.
France hater.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:02:39 PM
I see no obstacles for France in prosecuting any punitive strikes against Syria on her own, should she choose to do so. Granted, not at the tempo or to the degree of the US, but it wouldn't take much against Syria.
France hater.
Surrender Monkey Lover.
I hope Zombie Lafayette jams the Statue of Liberty up your ass.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:07:09 PM
I hope Zombie Lafayette jams the Statue of Liberty up your ass.
Now that you agree they cant, if France did go it alone, it would save face for your Messiah.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 03, 2013, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:07:09 PM
I hope Zombie Lafayette jams the Statue of Liberty up your ass.
Now that you agree they cant, if France did go it alone, it would save face for your Messiah.
How am I agreeing they can't, when I just said they could?
And why are you bringing Bernie Kosar into this?
11B4V isn't that good at judging these things.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 03, 2013, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:07:09 PM
I hope Zombie Lafayette jams the Statue of Liberty up your ass.
Now that you agree they cant, if France did go it alone, it would save face for your Messiah.
How am I agreeing they can't, when I just said they could?
And why are you bringing Bernie Kosar into this?
Bernie Kosar, :lol: at least you could pick a QB that didnt suck.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 03, 2013, 09:23:28 PM
Bernie Kosar, :lol: at least you could pick a QB that didnt suck.
Your Bernie-bashing is based in as much ignorance as your French-bashing, Cletus.
Didn't CdM get banned from Paradox for hating on France?
No, hating on Timmay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:16:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 03, 2013, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:07:09 PM
I hope Zombie Lafayette jams the Statue of Liberty up your ass.
Now that you agree they cant, if France did go it alone, it would save face for your Messiah.
And why are you bringing Bernie Kosar into this?
:lol:
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
At risk of being morbid...amid all the Russian commentary, this one brought a tear of respect to my old-school gamer eye...
Quotecounter terrorist win
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2013, 11:54:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
No, hating on Timmay.
Wasn't it Crunchy?
Meh, can't remember. Either way, it wasn't for the French. Villepin was a dick for stabbing Colin Powell in the back, but then again, so did the Bush Administration.
Speaking of Vilespin, he's still a pussy.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
1) the guy running in front of the machine gun...was that the lead singer of Rage Against the Machine?
2) I was hoping the Float from Animal House would show up.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag).
Holy shit.
Looks like they didn't get all the planes.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
They guy running out in front of the machine gun while it war firing sort of had it coming I guess..
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2013, 08:19:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
They guy running out in front of the machine gun while it war firing sort of had it coming I guess..
I think he was actually running behind it, the angle was kind of weird, but at the beginning the MG is actually firing towards the guy with the camera, and the guy was running on the other side, although at first it looks like he is running right into is LOF.
Didn't work out well for them in any case.
I guess Allah is still akbar.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 09:01:17 AM
I guess Allah is still akbar.
I like the change in the tone in such videos:
"Allahu Akbar! :w00t: Allahu Akbar! :w00t: Allahu Akbar! :w00t: "
KABOOM!!!!! "Allahu Akbar? :unsure:"
:lol:
Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-assures-americans-this-will-not-be-another-1,33719/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default)
QuoteWASHINGTON—As fierce debate continued this week over a proposed military strike on Syria, President Obama stressed to all Americans Monday that any U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern country would not in any way mirror the 1456 Ottoman Siege of Belgrade.
"I of course realize that many people around the country are concerned that an intervention in Syria would devolve into another Siege of Belgrade, but I can assure you that this operation will be swift, decisive, and will in no way resemble the Ottoman Empire's ill-advised invasion of Nándorfehérvár," Obama told the assembled White House Press Corps. "Our mission in Syria is fundamentally different from that of the Ottomans 550 years ago—there will be absolutely no boots on the ground, the attacks will only last for two or three days at the most, and we will, under no circumstances, be deploying a fleet of 200 galleys and 300 cannons."
"I can promise you this: My administration and I will not repeat the mistakes of Sultan Mehmed II," Obama continued. "Believe me, we have all learned the lessons from the campaign to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary following the fall of Constantinople."
Obama was reportedly adamant that the United States is not acting on poor or shortsighted intelligence, unlike the 15th-century Turks who underestimated the difficulty in quelling Belgrade's peasant army. The president also claimed that the current situation in Syria, when closely examined, "barely resembles the fight against St. John of Capistrano and his crusaders when they breached the Ottoman camp."
Despite the White House's claims that an American intervention in Syria would, if anything, most likely resemble the Ottoman Empire's successful 1521 Siege of Belgrade under Sultan Suleiman I, many remained skeptical this week that a U.S. military effort in Syria would not ultimately result in a military disaster on the scale of the 1456 campaign, which left extensive casualties of over 10,000 Hungarians and 50,000 Ottoman soldiers.
"When I heard we were getting involved in Syria, right away I thought, 'Well, here we go, it's 1456 Belgrade all over again,'" said Seattle resident Matt Haggerty, 42, who, like millions of Americans, says he "in no way supports the idea" of getting entangled in any military campaign even remotely similar to the Ottoman invasion of the Catholic Balkans. "Look, we all know what happened in Belgrade: Mehmed II thought he had everything under control, but Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi organized a peasant army of roughly 50,000 soldiers and relied on the strength of the city's castle to breach the Ottoman's formidable naval blockade, which prevented any further imperial advances into Europe for roughly 70 years. And frankly, like most of my friends and neighbors, I see very little separating what we're about to do in Syria and what the Anatolian corps did during their all-out assault on the Belgrade fortress from the Danube River. "
"I mean, sure, you can argue that the Ottomans eventually took Belgrade in the 16th century and held it successfully for 167 years, but there's no question that the siege destabilized the empire for half a century," Haggerty added.
Those who support a unilateral American military strike, however, maintain that the aftermath of Belgrade should be kept separate from the discussion of Syria.
"Regardless of the outcome, when you consider the circumstances and what people knew at the time, the Siege of Belgrade was the right thing to do, and I think the same about our responsibility to intervene in Syria," said 38-year-old Paterson, NJ resident Ashley Holloway. "After all, Mehmed II was only doing what he thought was in the best interests of the Turkish people, and he genuinely believed that the 1456 siege would ultimately offer the greatest chance of stability to what was unquestionably a troubled region. I trust that Obama, who is no doubt just as conscious of the lessons of Belgrade as the rest of us, will act accordingly."
"In the end, we simply can't afford to do nothing," Holloway added. "Otherwise, we'll be left with the blood of another Kankali genocide in Bukhara on our hands."
:lol: :nerd:
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
:mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
:mellow:
:secret: It's a guy thing.
Okay,that is enough of the ottoman story. That is 3 times here already.
Don't make me unleash my cat picture archives.
Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
:mellow:
If I could find it again, I'd post the insurgent in Iraq getting ripped appart by a SAW. Just for you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 09:33:09 AM
Okay,that is enough of the ottoman story. That is 3 times here already.
Don't make me unleash my cat picture archives.
It wasn't even funny the first time.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 09:34:21 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
:mellow:
If I could find it again, I'd post the insurgent in Iraq getting ripped appart by a SAW. Just for you.
Is that the one with the RPG dude getting drilled by short, highly accurate bursts?
edit: this one-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSagHaY3sko
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 09:43:52 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 09:34:21 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 11:53:33 PM
And now, for some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYew1IA-Ag.
:mellow:
If I could find it again, I'd post the insurgent in Iraq getting ripped appart by a SAW. Just for you.
Is that the one with the RPG dude getting drilled by short, highly accurate bursts?
IIRC, yes. He pops out in the middle of the street and gets SAW raped.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 09:33:09 AM
Okay,that is enough of the ottoman story. That is 3 times here already.
Don't make me unleash my cat picture archives.
Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-assures-americans-this-will-not-be-another-1,33719/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default)
QuoteWASHINGTON—As fierce debate continued this week over a proposed military strike on Syria, President Obama stressed to all Americans Monday that any U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern country would not in any way mirror the 1456 Ottoman Siege of Belgrade.
"I of course realize that many people around the country are concerned that an intervention in Syria would devolve into another Siege of Belgrade, but I can assure you that this operation will be swift, decisive, and will in no way resemble the Ottoman Empire's ill-advised invasion of Nándorfehérvár," Obama told the assembled White House Press Corps. "Our mission in Syria is fundamentally different from that of the Ottomans 550 years ago—there will be absolutely no boots on the ground, the attacks will only last for two or three days at the most, and we will, under no circumstances, be deploying a fleet of 200 galleys and 300 cannons."
"I can promise you this: My administration and I will not repeat the mistakes of Sultan Mehmed II," Obama continued. "Believe me, we have all learned the lessons from the campaign to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary following the fall of Constantinople."
Obama was reportedly adamant that the United States is not acting on poor or shortsighted intelligence, unlike the 15th-century Turks who underestimated the difficulty in quelling Belgrade's peasant army. The president also claimed that the current situation in Syria, when closely examined, "barely resembles the fight against St. John of Capistrano and his crusaders when they breached the Ottoman camp."
Despite the White House's claims that an American intervention in Syria would, if anything, most likely resemble the Ottoman Empire's successful 1521 Siege of Belgrade under Sultan Suleiman I, many remained skeptical this week that a U.S. military effort in Syria would not ultimately result in a military disaster on the scale of the 1456 campaign, which left extensive casualties of over 10,000 Hungarians and 50,000 Ottoman soldiers.
"When I heard we were getting involved in Syria, right away I thought, 'Well, here we go, it's 1456 Belgrade all over again,'" said Seattle resident Matt Haggerty, 42, who, like millions of Americans, says he "in no way supports the idea" of getting entangled in any military campaign even remotely similar to the Ottoman invasion of the Catholic Balkans. "Look, we all know what happened in Belgrade: Mehmed II thought he had everything under control, but Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi organized a peasant army of roughly 50,000 soldiers and relied on the strength of the city's castle to breach the Ottoman's formidable naval blockade, which prevented any further imperial advances into Europe for roughly 70 years. And frankly, like most of my friends and neighbors, I see very little separating what we're about to do in Syria and what the Anatolian corps did during their all-out assault on the Belgrade fortress from the Danube River. "
"I mean, sure, you can argue that the Ottomans eventually took Belgrade in the 16th century and held it successfully for 167 years, but there's no question that the siege destabilized the empire for half a century," Haggerty added.
Those who support a unilateral American military strike, however, maintain that the aftermath of Belgrade should be kept separate from the discussion of Syria.
"Regardless of the outcome, when you consider the circumstances and what people knew at the time, the Siege of Belgrade was the right thing to do, and I think the same about our responsibility to intervene in Syria," said 38-year-old Paterson, NJ resident Ashley Holloway. "After all, Mehmed II was only doing what he thought was in the best interests of the Turkish people, and he genuinely believed that the 1456 siege would ultimately offer the greatest chance of stability to what was unquestionably a troubled region. I trust that Obama, who is no doubt just as conscious of the lessons of Belgrade as the rest of us, will act accordingly."
"In the end, we simply can't afford to do nothing," Holloway added. "Otherwise, we'll be left with the blood of another Kankali genocide in Bukhara on our hands."
:lol: :nerd:
Dammit, I wish I was on the desktop instead of the iPad.
It took four times, but posting the siege of belgrade story finally made me laugh. :D
I like the idea, but the execution suffers from lack of subtlety, as is typical of The Onion.
Quote from: DGuller on September 04, 2013, 12:16:25 PM
I like the idea, but the execution suffers from lack of subtlety, as is typical of The Onion.
Yeah-- like a lot of their originally humorous concepts, it goes on a bit long.
They should have gone in the opposite direction. Rather than spoofing people comparing Syria to Iraq, they should have spoofed people saying it wasn't the same at all.
The first time I started reading it, I didn't pick up on the spoof. It just seemed random and obscure.
McCain seems to have taken a page out of the Ed Miliband playbook. <_<
Being a weasel?
Oh I see.
Playing poker on his phone during meetings?
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 01:11:03 PM
Playing poker on his phone during meetings?
He's not supporting the resolution as written.
Still not an Ed 'millipede' Millibrand yet. More like an old mangy dog not allowed to maul the children down the street.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 01:13:24 PM
Still not an Ed 'millipede' Millibrand yet. More like an old mangy dog not allowed to maul the children down the street.
Well that / he doesn't want this to just be a token effort.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 09:43:52 AM
Is that the one with the RPG dude getting drilled by short, highly accurate bursts?
edit: this one-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSagHaY3sko
This one came up as a suggestion. "BACKBLAST AREA CLE-- OH SHIT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEGMzQjd-dc&feature=endscreen
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 09:43:52 AM
Is that the one with the RPG dude getting drilled by short, highly accurate bursts?
edit: this one-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSagHaY3sko
This one came up as a suggestion. "BACKBLAST AREA CLE-- OH SHIT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEGMzQjd-dc&feature=endscreen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPx0iFoNAWQ
Everything is better with yakety sax.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 04, 2013, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 09:43:52 AM
Is that the one with the RPG dude getting drilled by short, highly accurate bursts?
edit: this one-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSagHaY3sko
This one came up as a suggestion. "BACKBLAST AREA CLE-- OH SHIT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEGMzQjd-dc&feature=endscreen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPx0iFoNAWQ
Everything is better with yakety sax.
Yes. :)
Quote from: TonitrusQuote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 04:01:50 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPx0iFoNAWQ
Everything is better with yakety sax.
Yes. :)
Including sex?
Quote from: Jacob on September 04, 2013, 04:04:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 04:01:50 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPx0iFoNAWQ
Everything is better with yakety sax.
Yes. :)
Including sex?
[/quote]
Yes. Or WASP's Fuck Like A Beast.
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Allahu ackbar
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
It's all they know.
Quote from: Neil on September 04, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
It's all they know.
Insha'Allah
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
It really depends on the motive of the person with the camera.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
They soothe it by clinging to their guns and religion.
QuoteSecretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday's hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That's how dedicated they are at this. That's not in the cards, and nobody's talking about it, but they're talking in serious ways about getting this done.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2013, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
They soothe it by clinging to their guns and religion.
I see what you did there!
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2013, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
They soothe it by clinging to their guns and religion.
Fuck off.
I wonder what Arab gun culture is like compared to American gun nuts.
Quote from: Neil on September 04, 2013, 08:35:52 PM
I wonder what Arab gun culture is like compared to American gun nuts.
They shoot less for accuracy.
They compare whose backfire explosion was bigger.
Quote from: Neil on September 04, 2013, 08:35:52 PM
I wonder what Arab gun culture is like compared to American gun nuts.
They sorta blend together.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Sahara_Hare_screenshot.png)
I was just thinking that I bet there's a lot of similarity between the al-Qaeda rebels and the Ruby Ridge/Waco gun enthusiasts.
Quote from: Neil on September 04, 2013, 09:10:32 PM
I was just thinking that I bet there's a lot of similarity between the al-Qaeda rebels and the Ruby Ridge/Waco gun enthusiasts.
Seems like a lot of that special class of Hollywood-tinted idiocy where smooth-bore guns are more accurate, sawing off a shotgun magically makes it hit harder, and firing assault rifles one-handed is a good idea.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2013, 09:04:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 04, 2013, 08:35:52 PM
I wonder what Arab gun culture is like compared to American gun nuts.
They sorta blend together.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Sahara_Hare_screenshot.png)
:lol:
Putin's behind it all! :tinfoil:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/143492/samuels-syria-vladimir-putin#
QuoteThe nerve-gas attack that left an estimated 1,000 or more dead civilians foaming at the mouth last month in Damascus constitutes a national security risk that the United States cannot afford to ignore, President Barack Obama argued in his televised remarks on Saturday, because it "risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons." A more precise description of the attack in Damascus was that it made a mockery of Obama's "red line" against the use of chemical weapons—a line that Obama appears to have laid down precisely because he believed that it would never be crossed, thus providing America with a bullet-proof excuse for staying out of Syria's bloody civil war.
So, who in their right mind would aim to force Obama into a conflict he obviously wants to avoid? Syria has little military or political interest in being bombed by the United States—especially now that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is clearly winning the war for primacy in Syria. In the context of the regime's recent military gains, a chemical weapons attack on a civilian neighborhood in the middle of Damascus served no strategic purpose even remotely commensurate with the risk it entailed. The same goes for Syria's regional allies: Hezbollah has little interest in their Syrian ally appearing to be even more of a monster, and Iran's chief interest would appear to lie in encouraging the rest of the world to forget about WMD threats until they actually acquire a nuclear bomb.
Who actually benefited from breaching Obama's "red line"? A compelling answer can be found in the nature of the attack itself. A Sarin gas attack like the one in Damascus requires days of preparation so that the chemical agents can be mixed and loaded into specialized delivery systems by trained handlers and troops in the region can be issued gas masks and other protective clothing. Orders must travel through a defined chain of command—allowing them to be intercepted, as they apparently were by Israeli intelligence, which put them in American hands before the attack was even launched. In other words, a nerve-gas attack is not the kind of atrocity that a local commander can order up on a whim to please his goons or terrify the locals into obedience. Except in the most extreme instances of Col. Kurtz-like madness or institutional disintegration, orders to use such weapons necessarily come from the top.
Clearly, suggesting that anyone aside from Assad gave the final order to launch a massive chemical weapons attack in the center of his own capital is tantamount to suggesting that Assad is no longer in charge of his regime—a suggestion for which there is no evidence. But the chain of military command inside Syria doesn't end with the country's president. The idea that Assad gave the order to carry out such a massive and politically dangerous attack without the approval of his Russian and Iranian advisers is also absurd—given the regime's near-total reliance on Russian and Iranian strategic planning, supplies, fighters, and diplomatic backing for its week-to-week survival. Ditto for the idea that Russian or Iranian officers inside Syria gave their approval for such an attack without the blessing of the men at the top of their own chains of command: Ali Khamenei in Iran, and Vladimir Putin in Russia.
So, who—Khamenei or Putin—gave the OK? A reading of public statements by Iranian leaders suggests that they were at the least discomfited by the Syrian government's actions, if not blind-sided by them. Both current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and former Iranian President Rafsanjani condemned the attack, with Rafsanjani openly naming the Syrian government as the perpetrator. Rouhani, for his part, called on "the international community to use all its might to prevent the use of these weapons anywhere in the world, especially in Syria"—which hardly seem like the words of a man whose immediate boss just OKed the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Which leaves the more influential and powerful authority figure in the room by nearly every conceivable measure, including disposable wealth, diplomatic throw-weight, and advanced weapons systems: Vladimir Putin.
The most illuminating way of understanding why Putin would greenlight a nerve-gas attack that would cross America's "red lines" in Syria is therefore to ask how the Russian president understands U.S. policy toward the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—a policy whose real focus is not Syria but Iran.
***
Among students of the rougher techniques used by fascists, communists, and other old-fashioned political actors whose names rarely appear on ballots in contemporary Western democracies, the nerve-gas attack in Damascus is what's known as a provocation. In the aesthetics of power that Putin learned from his instructors in the KGB, and that they learned from both their Leninist teachers and the Nazi enemy in WWII, a good provocation is a thing of beauty—a sinister and mind-bending event designed to elicit a response that will serve as a pretext for a predetermined course of action directed toward a larger strategic goal.
One of the classic aims of provocation as a technique is to alter the context in which future action takes place; the aggressor looks like he is defending himself, while the injured party looks like the aggressor. One major aim of this reversal is to disorient and demoralize the victim as well as anyone who is watching, a situation that often leads to paralysis, which further augments the aggressor's tactical advantage. Some classic examples of provocation include the burning of the Reichstag, which was provoked by the Gestapo and led to Hitler's formal seizure of power in Germany, or attacks on ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia and Poland that were staged or provoked by Nazi agents and then used as pretexts for the Nazi invasions of those countries. A more recent example of the technique can arguably be found in the 1999 bombings of apartment buildings in Moscow by Chechen terrorists—attacks that may have been sanctioned by the FSB for the purpose of bringing Putin to power.
And while Hezbollah is silent and the Iranians condemn their ally's actions, Putin appears to be enjoying himself at his victim's expense. Calling claims of a Syrian nerve-gas strike "utter nonsense," Putin told the Ria Novosti news agency last week that he had not seen even the slightest proof that the Syrian government was behind any use of chemical weapons, ever—or that chemical weapons had been used at all. "If they say that the governmental forces used weapons of mass destruction ... and that they have proof of it, let them present it to the U.N. inspectors and the Security Council," Putin opined, adding, "Claims that the proof exists but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody are below criticism." Putin also seemed to delight in personally tweaking Obama—addressing him not as President of the United States but as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and urging him to embrace nonviolence.
If what happened in Damascus was a provocation, authored by Putin and intended to display American weakness to the world—the next question then becomes, why? Or, to put a finer point on things, what purpose, apart from the obvious pleasure of making Obama look like a sissy, was worth the risk of being held responsible—even partially responsible—for killing more than 1,000 people with weapons whose names are bywords for horror and whose use is a heinous crime under international law.
A worthy prize is not hard to find. While Obama was making his calculations about staying out of Syria—calculations that appear in retrospect to have been both reasonable and false—Putin was making his own calculations about the power vacuum that Obama had left behind in the Middle East. His first conclusion from studying that vacuum appears to have been that Obama wasn't serious about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb—since that would mean involvement in another shooting war in the region. His second conclusion was that the best way to make that conclusion obvious was by crossing Obama's "red line" in Syria—in response to which the U.S. president would probably do nothing, or next to nothing. What made the "red line" a perfect target for a provocation was that the line was never serious; it was a fig-leaf for excusing American inaction in a bloody civil war while keeping alive the president's stated commitment to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
It is also worth noting that the nerve-gas attack in Syria is simply the latest and biggest in a series of incidents in which Putin has chosen to publically confront the United States and stick his finger in Obama's eye. First, Putin chose to give NSA leaker Edward Snowden refuge in Moscow's airport and then in Moscow itself—a decision that led Obama to cancel his planned summit meeting with the Russian president, which presumably was a consequence that Putin both predicted and welcomed. Second, Putin decided to criminalize homosexuality at the Sochi Olympics—a thumb in the eye to an American government that prided itself on its acceptance of gay marriage. The U.S. press treated each of these incidents as indications that Putin is a difficult, ornery person—when in retrospect, they appear to be part of an ongoing global campaign to put Moscow on one side and Washington on the other. Applying the wedge tactics in the global arena that were so successful in Putin's use of the Pussy Riot incident at home was an interesting novelty, it seemed, but nothing more. What was missing was any sense of why Putin would suddenly find it to Russia's advantage to stoke conflict with Washington.
Evidence for why Putin might have gambled on America backing down is again easy to find. Obama made it plain that his only real interest in the Middle East was to get American troops out of the region as fast as possible. His famous Cairo speech, which so excited global commentators, pro and con, was a rhetorical signal that America was taking a new direction after eight years of war. The direction Obama clearly favored was "out"—out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, out of the business of backing Hosni Mubarak and other regional dictators, out of attempts to overthrow or destabilize the regime in Iran, out of any real effort to create a Palestinian state or force Israel to leave the West Bank.
For Washington policymakers on both sides of the aisle, Obama's new direction for Mideast policy made plenty of sense. The American economy was weakened by a decade of wars, the American people were tired, and the Pentagon was broke. Attempts at using limited force in Libya had created a mess that made even reasonable people long for the days of Muammar al-Qaddafi. Egypt, where Obama hoped for an accommodation with the Muslim Brotherhood, slid into economic chaos and hopeless misrule. On the plus side, what was left of al-Qaida seemed more or less under control—and there was also the surprising news that, thanks to improved technology for extracting oil from shale deposits, America was on track to become the world's largest oil producer by 2017. So, why bother with the Middle East?
The president's Syria policy was therefore an entirely coherent example of his larger approach to the region: Let Assad's forces and the Sunni jihadists stomp on each other's corpses and then YouTube it, while America provided airplane meals to a limited number of people who professed their belief in some form of democratic, nonsectarian government. The appointment of Samantha Power as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was icing on the policy cake, ensuring that the Pulitzer Prize-winner would be too busy explaining Syria policy to her fellow delegates and Ivy League grads to write a book denouncing Obama as an accomplice to genocide. It was perfect set-up, until Putin ruined it all with a nasty poison gas attack on Obama's face-saving "red line."
The prize Putin is seeking for obliterating the American "red line" is not victory in Syria—since his client Assad is clearly winning anyway. The point of the attack is to publically expose Obama's deep ambivalence about the use of force to stop Iran. If Obama's red line against the use of chemical weapons in Syria can fall so easily, after the public deaths of more than 1,000 innocent people, including hundreds of children who died foaming at the mouth, how many cruise missiles might Iran's putative acquisition of nuclear weapons capacity cost? Two hundred? One hundred? Zero? The answer now is plain: However many missiles they might fire, America has no stomach for fighting a war in Syria, let alone in Iran.
***
Putin needs to make America look weak because Russia is weak. The major source of Russian weakness is Vladimir Putin—or rather, the system that Putin has imposed on Russia so that he can continue in his dual capacity as the country's elected leader and also its richest man. When he decided to run for president again in 2012, Putin was faced with a fateful choice: He could work to make Russia an attractive destination for foreign capital by strengthening the rule of law and loosening the grip of the oligarchs, or he could choose to strengthen his own rule, according to the methods that were most familiar to him. Putin's decision to use fraudulent means to win the presidential election, and then to clamp down hard on subsequent criticism, closing down newspapers and throwing critics in jail, made perfect sense to a man bred in an authoritarian state. It also ensured that the Russian economy would continue to be run through by Putin and the oligarchs—the backbone of his political support—in ways that were unlikely to encourage rational foreign investment. The decay of the Russian economy under Putin means that foreign policy is not a moral exercise—rather, it is the only means by which Russia's current economic leverage can be sustained.
By showing that Obama's America is unable and unwilling to keep its promises, Putin has widened the leadership void in the Middle East—as a prelude to filling it himself. By helping to clear Iran's path to a bomb, Putin positions himself as Iran's most powerful ally—while paradoxically gaining greater leverage with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, who would much rather negotiate with Russia than with Iran, their sworn enemy. While the Americans were heading out of the Middle East, and the Chinese were too busy with their own internal debates about the future of their economy and society, Putin saw that something valuable had been abandoned on the world stage, and he took it. For the price of 1,000 dead civilians in Damascus, he has gained great power status in the oil-rich Middle East. Iran, for its part, gets the bomb, which isn't great news for anyone, but was probably going to happen anyway.
The first lesson here for American policymakers is that Putin may or may not be evil, but he is obviously much smarter than they are—and he knows it. Another lesson worth learning is that American belief in promoting ostensibly universal aims like promoting democracy or halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through the limited and well-meaning use of military force is only sensible in a world of people who share American values and preferences.
Since no such world exists, at least right now, and probably ever, Americans might be better off crediting the notion that while we are thinking our thoughts, other people are thinking their own thoughts, which are shaped by very different experiences and aesthetics—and that are likely to shape a world that we no longer control, in part because we have decided that telling people in faraway places what to do is the ultimate sin. In that belief, as in many others, Obama—and not his critics on the left and on the right—accurately reflects the will of the American people, who have experienced the endless wars of the last 50 years as a pointless waste of lives and treasure whose only clear outcomes appear to be piles of corpses abroad and the diminishment of basic liberties at home.
Only time will tell whose evil is worse—Putin's or Obama's. While Putin delights in using the old-school KGB playbook to consolidate his one-man rule, and to expose the empty moral posturing of the West, Obama believes that he can talk his way into a workable accommodation between his own sense of morality and global reality. But the lesson of Obama's fig leaf is that it is better to be honest about what we are doing in the world and why. If Putin baited a trap for the United States in Damascus, it was Obama who walked right into it. If Obama had stood up and declared that the United States had no vital interest in Syria but would stop Iran from getting nukes—and would prosecute the authors of the nerve-gas attack at The Hague—then Putin would have been trapped. The same would have been true if Obama had said nothing and blown up two or three of Assad's palaces. But he did neither. Sometimes, well-meaning lies and political spin can be just as deadly, in the end, as nerve gas.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 04, 2013, 08:35:52 PM
I wonder what Arab gun culture is like compared to American gun nuts.
They shoot less for accuracy.
Here's more on Islamic gun culture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LtXeOBnRtY
It's a pretty catchy tune. I give it 9/11.
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2013, 12:33:10 AM
Here's more on Islamic gun culture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LtXeOBnRtY
It's a pretty catchy tune. I give it 9/11.
You're being too generous. It's worth 7/11 at most.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 08:30:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2013, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
They soothe it by clinging to their guns and religion.
Fuck off.
Guess that hit a little close to home.
Tim, Very interesting article, and what seems a very new and sobering look at things. I wonder how much discussion, if any, has been going on among US Intel and the leaderhip, and how much truth there might be to this. I've been thinking since Bush days that Putin and the Russians have been playing and outfoxing US leaders at a game maybe US leaders don't fully realize they're in.
QuotePutin needs to make America look weak because Russia is weak. The major source of Russian weakness is Vladimir Putin—or rather, the system that Putin has imposed on Russia so that he can continue in his dual capacity as the country's elected leader and also its richest man. When he decided to run for president again in 2012, Putin was faced with a fateful choice: He could work to make Russia an attractive destination for foreign capital by strengthening the rule of law and loosening the grip of the oligarchs, or he could choose to strengthen his own rule, according to the methods that were most familiar to him. Putin's decision to use fraudulent means to win the presidential election, and then to clamp down hard on subsequent criticism, closing down newspapers and throwing critics in jail, made perfect sense to a man bred in an authoritarian state. It also ensured that the Russian economy would continue to be run through by Putin and the oligarchs—the backbone of his political support—in ways that were unlikely to encourage rational foreign investment. The decay of the Russian economy under Putin means that foreign policy is not a moral exercise—rather, it is the only means by which Russia's current economic leverage can be sustained.
Pretty telling about Russia and Putin and how shaky things are under a house of cards. You have to wonder how long it can continue without imploding.
QuoteOnly time will tell whose evil is worse—Putin's or Obama's. While Putin delights in using the old-school KGB playbook to consolidate his one-man rule, and to expose the empty moral posturing of the West, Obama believes that he can talk his way into a workable accommodation between his own sense of morality and global reality. But the lesson of Obama's fig leaf is that it is better to be honest about what we are doing in the world and why. If Putin baited a trap for the United States in Damascus, it was Obama who walked right into it. If Obama had stood up and declared that the United States had no vital interest in Syria but would stop Iran from getting nukes—and would prosecute the authors of the nerve-gas attack at The Hague—then Putin would have been trapped. The same would have been true if Obama had said nothing and blown up two or three of Assad's palaces. But he did neither. Sometimes, well-meaning lies and political spin can be just as deadly, in the end, as nerve gas.
This sums it all up nicely. Too bad the US leadership, including former Pres Bush, haven't been up to the task of being a step ahead of Russia.
US has rarely been a step ahead of Russia, or USSR, when it comes to such games. Its strength is that it doesn't need to do well in such games, whereas Russia does.
Quote from: KRonn on September 05, 2013, 07:01:34 AM
Tim, Very interesting article, and what seems a very new and sobering look at things. I wonder how much discussion, if any, has been going on among US Intel and the leaderhip, and how much truth there might be to this. I've been thinking since Bush days that Putin and the Russians have been playing and outfoxing US leaders at a game maybe US leaders don't fully realize they're in.
QuotePutin needs to make America look weak because Russia is weak. The major source of Russian weakness is Vladimir Putin—or rather, the system that Putin has imposed on Russia so that he can continue in his dual capacity as the country's elected leader and also its richest man. When he decided to run for president again in 2012, Putin was faced with a fateful choice: He could work to make Russia an attractive destination for foreign capital by strengthening the rule of law and loosening the grip of the oligarchs, or he could choose to strengthen his own rule, according to the methods that were most familiar to him. Putin's decision to use fraudulent means to win the presidential election, and then to clamp down hard on subsequent criticism, closing down newspapers and throwing critics in jail, made perfect sense to a man bred in an authoritarian state. It also ensured that the Russian economy would continue to be run through by Putin and the oligarchs—the backbone of his political support—in ways that were unlikely to encourage rational foreign investment. The decay of the Russian economy under Putin means that foreign policy is not a moral exercise—rather, it is the only means by which Russia's current economic leverage can be sustained.
Pretty telling about Russia and Putin and how shaky things are under a house of cards. You have to wonder how long it can continue without imploding.
QuoteOnly time will tell whose evil is worse—Putin's or Obama's. While Putin delights in using the old-school KGB playbook to consolidate his one-man rule, and to expose the empty moral posturing of the West, Obama believes that he can talk his way into a workable accommodation between his own sense of morality and global reality. But the lesson of Obama's fig leaf is that it is better to be honest about what we are doing in the world and why. If Putin baited a trap for the United States in Damascus, it was Obama who walked right into it. If Obama had stood up and declared that the United States had no vital interest in Syria but would stop Iran from getting nukes—and would prosecute the authors of the nerve-gas attack at The Hague—then Putin would have been trapped. The same would have been true if Obama had said nothing and blown up two or three of Assad's palaces. But he did neither. Sometimes, well-meaning lies and political spin can be just as deadly, in the end, as nerve gas.
This sums it all up nicely. Too bad the US leadership, including former Pres Bush, haven't been up to the task of being a step ahead of Russia.
I don't think you should take such articles seriously.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2013, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
They soothe it by clinging to their guns and religion.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 08:30:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2013, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 04, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
How do these things become public? One would think they would want to destroy all evidence of their incompetance as quickly as possible?
Arabs seem to revel in failure, for some reason.
They soothe it by clinging to their guns and religion.
Fuck off.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 04:43:39 AM
Guess that hit a little close to home.
Nah, I was in a shitty mood. Cards looked like they were gonna lose.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.private-eye.co.uk%2Fpictures%2Fcaptions%2Fputin_obama.jpg&hash=e31402ae9c2e0179a1ee8fb0628fa2ec41eb7f74)
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 02:05:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 02:01:27 PM
A flight of stairs. I don't know what the demands will be, but I imagine there will be some demands and if they are not fulfilled in a certain amount of time bombing will commence. Do you think this is an impossible scenario?
I think it's a very strange scenario. Our ostensible motivation for striking is something that has already happened. As Max said, they can't bring the victims back to life. Definitely not in 48 hours.
Score one for Raz: ultimatum issued. :P
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry
I think we should keep drawing red lines until Assad realizes we mean business. Or something...
So when's the Pimpslap, aye or nay vote?
http://www.theguardian.com/global/middle-east-live/2013/sep/09/syria-crisis-russia-kerry-us-live
QuoteSyria crisis: Russia calls on Assad to destroy chemical arsenal - live updates
QuoteDamascus has heartily welcomed a Moscow proposal to undertake a purported disarmament project that coincidentally would make it more difficult for US leaders planning strikes to claim all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted, while not detracting from Assad's day-to-day warmaking ability.
WW3 appears to be delayed for a bit more. :P
Quote from: Legbiter on September 09, 2013, 11:26:34 AM
So when's the Pimpslap, aye or nay vote?
I think it'd be cool as shit to fire off the Tomahawks right in the middle of the POTUS address to the nation tomorrow night. That's the way the ol' Gipper would do it.
When is congress going to have a vote on this? Is it going to be put off and waffled for a while, or is it happening soon?
Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2013, 01:02:17 PM
When is congress going to have a vote on this? Is it going to be put off and waffled for a while, or is it happening soon?
They were on vacation until this week.
Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2013, 01:02:17 PM
When is congress going to have a vote on this? Is it going to be put off and waffled for a while, or is it happening soon?
Suggestions are senate vote likely this week and then house either this week or next.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 04:00:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2013, 01:02:17 PM
When is congress going to have a vote on this? Is it going to be put off and waffled for a while, or is it happening soon?
Suggestions are senate vote likely this week and then house either this week or next.
Thanks :)
Interesting times.
It looks like the "consult congress" course of action has proven unpopular with the languish constituency. How's it playing generally in the US?
Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2013, 04:02:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 04:00:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2013, 01:02:17 PM
When is congress going to have a vote on this? Is it going to be put off and waffled for a while, or is it happening soon?
Suggestions are senate vote likely this week and then house either this week or next.
Thanks :)
Interesting times.
It looks like the "consult congress" course of action has proven unpopular with the languish constituency. How's it playing generally in the US?
It's less nuanced, but public opinion is pretty firmly against action.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 04:17:11 PMIt's less nuanced, but public opinion is pretty firmly against action.
So on Languish we have "Obama is weak and waffling. Bah."
In America we have "we don't want to get involved, so Obama waffling suits us just fine."
And in the House of Representatives and the Senate we have "what the hell do we do with this?"
Is that a more or less accurate generalization?
Ed thinks Obama needs to back his words up. Ed likes talking in the third person. Ed is very, very disappointed in the chocolate president.
Ed should make moar stool.
Quote from: Jacob on September 09, 2013, 04:29:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 04:17:11 PMIt's less nuanced, but public opinion is pretty firmly against action.
So on Languish we have "Obama is weak and waffling. Bah."
In America we have "we don't want to get involved, so Obama waffling suits us just fine."
And in the House of Representatives and the Senate we have "what the hell do we do with this?"
Is that a more or less accurate generalization?
Languish: I guess
America: I wouldn't say teh people approve of his waffling. They may be indifferent to it. But Obama is not doing a good job selling this to them. He is set up for political embarrassment at this point, but my gut is that his poll numbers won't move much.
Congress: One big, hairy mess. Some want boots on the ground, others are "hell no, we won't go". Some Dems are with the Prez solely out of duty to be good Dems, some Republicans oppose him just to oppose him, both parties' leadership seems to support, but you have a strange coalition of lefty anti-war types, libertarians, and paleoconservatives in lockstep against it.
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2013, 04:34:52 PM
Ed should make moar stool.
That was yesterday. Little floaters.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2013, 05:12:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2013, 04:34:52 PM
Ed should make moar stool.
That was yesterday. Little floaters.
I've been a little backed up since Saturday. :cry:
No discussion of Poutine's surprise proposal? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2013, 06:33:02 PM
No discussion of Poutine's surprise proposal? :unsure:
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face. to get upstaged in crisis leadership by, of all people, the fucking Russians.
Obama didn't want to bomb, but he didn't want to just back down. He gets both with this deal.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Don't see how Syria or Russia save. It's a complete fold.
Delaying tactic. A solid play by the Russians though.
Thoroughly disgusted. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Don't see how Syria or Russia save. It's a complete fold.
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
POTUS to speak in 15 minutes; anyone going to watch it ?
edit:
former CW weapons inspector from UN/Iraq, an American called Deiter (something didn't catch surname), said it would take around 2 years to decomission and process the weapons and infrastructure.
Nope. Rather watch a test pattern.
I really want him to paraphrase Picard's draw the line speech, and announce the attack has begun, but it's not gonna happen. :nerd:
I actually thought Obama's comments during the press conference in Sweden were among the best utterances of his tenure.
Still not going to watch it though.
He's not saying anything we didn't already know, or expect him to say.
"Sometimes resolutions or statements are not enough."
"The US is an anchor of global security, etc., and we and the world are better for carrying that burden..."
"What kind of world would we live in if the United States chose to look the other way in the face of such atrocities..."
FDR quotes. We're not the world's policeman, can't right every wrong, etc., but our ability to act with humility and resolve when able, etc., we're the motherfucking United States, etc.
All in all, your usual classical neo-liberal God-Bless-America international interventionism against the use of chemical weapons. Moral obligation.
Shored up the "international community" angle, asking to postpone the vote until diplomacy takes time, blah blah blah.
Unfortunately, he didn't mention the cockblocking Russia's already done today at the UN.
They're just buying time for their fave-rave weapons client, and hoping it'll all blow over and preserve the legitimacy of Assad's government.
You never get involved in a land war in Asia, you never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line, and you don't rely on Russians when it comes to international diplomacy.
QuoteKerry, Lavrov to meet on Russian proposal after Russia balks at plan for U.N. action
By Colum Lynch and Karen DeYoung, Updated: Tuesday, September 10, 4:39 PM
UNITED NATIONS — Secretary of State John F. Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, agreed to meet in Geneva on Thursday to discuss a Russian proposal for international monitoring and eventual destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, after a day of rapid-fire exchanges threatened to derail the nascent initiative.
After near-constant consultations through Monday night into the morning, the United States, France and Britain agreed on the need to establish a legally binding chemical inspection regime backed by the authorization to use force if Syria did not comply with its terms.
By mid-morning, Russia had rejected a proposed U.N. resolution, announced by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, and called an emergency Security Council meeting. Lavrov called the threat of military action "unacceptable," and Russian President Vladmir Putin said a weapons deal would work only if the United States and others "tell us they're giving up their plan to use force against Syria."
After an afternoon telephone conversation between Kerry and Lavrov, the Russians dropped their demand for the emergency meeting and instead agreed that Kerry and Lavrov should talk face to face.
The purpose, a senior State Department official said, is to make sure that what Russia has in mind for Syria's weapons is comprehensive and verifiable in the midst of a protracted civil war, and to make clear that the United States and its partners insist that the proposal includes consequences if Syria does not comply.
"We're waiting for that proposal," a senior administration official said, "but we're not waiting long. We will take a hard look at it, but it has to be swift, it has to be real, and it has to be verifiable. . . . If the U.N. Security Council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, well, then, it can't be a debating society."
Just a day after Russia made the surprise weapons proposal and Syria immediately announced its agreement, the Western partners remained wary that it was a ploy designed to head off President Obama's plan to launch a U.S. military strike. Kerry and other senior administration officials continued previously scheduled congressional briefings to build support for a what it has been called a "limited" attack to punish Syria for using chemical weapons outside Damascus last month, killing more than 1,400 people.
The U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Coalition was unequivocal in its assessment, calling the initiative a strategy to stall for time and an inadequate response to a chemical attack that had already taken place.
"Crimes against humanity cannot be absolved through political concessions, or surrendering the weapons used to commit them," the coalition said in a statement.
Although Syria is believed to have large stockpiles of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, sarin and other nerve agents, its government has never explicitly acknowledged possessing them. In a CBS interview last weekend, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denied that any government chemical attack had taken place. He refused to confirm the existence of the stockpiles and accused the opposition of gassing his soldiers.
But in an interview Tuesday with Lebanese media, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said that his government would provide "information about our chemical weapons," according to Russia's state-funded RT television network."We will open our storage sites and cease production. We intend to give up chemical weapons altogether."
Moualem said Syria "fully supports" the Russian initiative and intends "to join the Chemical Weapons Convention" that renounces all chemical use.
The text of a proposed U.N. resolution was outlined Tuesday morning in Paris Fabius, the French foreign minister. The resolution would also authorize an investigation by the International Criminal Court into war crimes perpetrated by the Assad government, according to a diplomat familiar with the text.
In addition to Lavrov's rejection of U.N. authorization of the use of force, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement indicated that Moscow does not want a Security Council resolution at all. Instead, the statement said, Russia envisions a statement by the council's president — who rotates and is now an Australian representative — that would "welcome" the plan to monitor and ultimately destroy Syria's chemical weapons and call on "interested parties" to carry out the plan.
In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron told members of Parliament that the bare-bones Russian proposal was "definitely worth exploring" but that it must be "tested out properly" to ensure it wasn't a "ruse." Any Security Council resolution, he said, must include "a proper timetable, process and consequences if it's not done."
Just two weeks ago, Cameron appeared to become peripheral to international action on Syria, after Parliament rejected his proposal to join the United States in a military strike. But the new turn of events appeared to place him back in the mix as a close U.S. partner, along with France.
In addition to the calls made by Kerry, the White House said that Obama spoke separately Tuesday morning with Cameron and French President François Hollande.
"They agreed to work closely together, and in consultation with Russia and China, to explore seriously the viability of the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons and related materials fully under international control in order to ensure their verifiable and enforceable destruction," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. Their discussions, Carney said, will include "elements of a potential U.N. Security Council resolution."
In Washington, Kerry told a House committee that the proposal "is the ideal way" to take chemical weapons away from Assad's forces. But he warned that the administration would not tolerate "delay" or "avoidance."
The Arab League, which the United States has looked toward for support for a military strike on Syria, welcomed the Russian proposal Tuesday. Speaking at its organization's Cairo headquarters, Arab League head Nabil Elaraby told reporters that it had always been in favor of a "political solution" to the Syrian crisis, the Associated Press reported, saying that Elaraby added, "Thank God."
Iran, among Assad's strongest supporters, also voiced support for the plan. Quoting Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iran's deputy foreign minister for Arab and African affairs, the Iranian news agency IRNA said that Damascus and Tehran welcomed the proposal as a way of preparing the ground for resolving the Syrian crisis through political means.
The agency also said the deputy minister expected the entire region to be cleared of weapons of mass destruction, noting that Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons should also be "taken into consideration."
How does Russia still have veto power on the Security Council? Better yet, why are they even still on the fucking Security Council at all, since they're involved in half the shit that should be going to the UNSC's desks? Is there no mechanism at all for ejecting a blatant obstructionist party?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2013, 08:40:34 PM
They're just buying time for their fave-rave weapons client, and hoping it'll all blow over and preserve the legitimacy of Assad's government.
Where is Syria getting money to buy weapons, or are they buying on credit? The economy, whatever it once was, has to be complete shit now.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 09:54:48 PM
How does Russia still have veto power on the Security Council? Better yet, why are they even still on the fucking Security Council at all, since they're involved in half the shit that should be going to the UNSC's desks? Is there no mechanism at all for ejecting a blatant obstructionist party?
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
Which we can't actually put anywhere without a UNSC resolution. And that's where the problem begins. NATO's run by too many people who couldn't even access the "NA" without a polar ice cutter.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
Which we can't actually put anywhere without a UNSC resolution. And that's where the problem begins. NATO's run by too many people who couldn't even access the "NA" without a polar ice cutter.
Derspeiss currently has a soft spot for "blatant obstructionist parties". :D
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
Which we can't actually put anywhere without a UNSC resolution. And that's where the problem begins. NATO's run by too many people who couldn't even access the "NA" without a polar ice cutter.
Sure, we can. Who is going to stop NATO?
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2013, 08:40:34 PM
They're just buying time for their fave-rave weapons client, and hoping it'll all blow over and preserve the legitimacy of Assad's government.
Where is Syria getting money to buy weapons, or are they buying on credit? The economy, whatever it once was, has to be complete shit now.
They're still accepting deliveries on weapons and weapons systems on contracts inked well before the civil war got going. While the Syrians are certainly getting squeezed these days, it's not uncommon to accept arms deliveries for partial down payments made years in advance. That new Russian air defense system earmarked for Syria isn't even going to be delivered until June 2014 at the earliest.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
Which we can't actually put anywhere without a UNSC resolution. And that's where the problem begins. NATO's run by too many people who couldn't even access the "NA" without a polar ice cutter.
Sure, we can. Who is going to stop NATO?
Judging by the last decade, A few guys hiding in the mountains with AK-47s.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Don't see how Syria or Russia save. It's a complete fold.
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
Looking pretty good for no action. :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:15:30 PM
Still easier to get a consensus within NATO than with Russian and China.
I agree. It's been done plenty of times before.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 09:54:48 PM
How does Russia still have veto power on the Security Council? Better yet, why are they even still on the fucking Security Council at all, since they're involved in half the shit that should be going to the UNSC's desks? Is there no mechanism at all for ejecting a blatant obstructionist party?
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
I think we can add some Eastern countries like Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Australia and New Zealand aren't "Eastern countries", no matter what the map says.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2013, 10:24:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 09:54:48 PM
How does Russia still have veto power on the Security Council? Better yet, why are they even still on the fucking Security Council at all, since they're involved in half the shit that should be going to the UNSC's desks? Is there no mechanism at all for ejecting a blatant obstructionist party?
Yeah, let's get rid of China while we're at it. And maybe just limit it to reliable, sane, and established Western democracies. Oh wait, we already have that-- NATO :P
I think we can add some Eastern countries like Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Bring back SEATO!
Quote from: 11B4V on September 10, 2013, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Don't see how Syria or Russia save. It's a complete fold.
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
Looking pretty good for no action. :P
Yeah, looks like you are going to be giving your home address to a lunatic on the Internet.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 10, 2013, 09:54:48 PM
How does Russia still have veto power on the Security Council? Better yet, why are they even still on the fucking Security Council at all, since they're involved in half the shit that should be going to the UNSC's desks? Is there no mechanism at all for ejecting a blatant obstructionist party?
That would be counterproductive.
The problem isn't the UN, it's th idea tha the UN is or could ever be perfect or just. That's a little much to ask from an institution whose only purpose is to prevent World War 3.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 10, 2013, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Don't see how Syria or Russia save. It's a complete fold.
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
Looking pretty good for no action. :P
Yeah, looks like you are going to be giving your home address to a lunatic on the Internet.
No worries
Quote from: Neil on September 11, 2013, 12:01:06 AM
That would be counterproductive.
The problem isn't the UN, it's th idea tha the UN is or could ever be perfect or just. That's a little much to ask from an institution whose only purpose is to prevent World War 3.
Which is also the reason the UNSC is what it is. It is composed of the five declared nuclear powers.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 11, 2013, 07:16:14 AM
Which is also the reason the UNSC is what it is. It is composed of the five declared nuclear powers.
That's only the five permanent members. There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.
I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.
actually it is good they have veto, otherwise they could be cornered into a decision to go to war or lose massive face / interests.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 11, 2013, 07:22:55 AM
That's only the five permanent members. There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.
I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.
Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.
Anyway, that's Neil's point. The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process. It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world. Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 11, 2013, 07:22:55 AM
I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.
What would a democratic process look like in this context?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 11, 2013, 09:35:43 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 11, 2013, 07:22:55 AM
That's only the five permanent members. There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.
I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.
Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.
Anyway, that's Neil's point. The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process. It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world. Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.
Which is why using the UN as a litmus test for taking action on almost anything is ridiculous.
It is a great tool for coordinating action when it allows it, but a terrible tool for vetting what action ought to be taken.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
Backing down from a threat is the very definition of losing face.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2013, 09:44:18 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 11, 2013, 09:35:43 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 11, 2013, 07:22:55 AM
That's only the five permanent members. There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.
I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.
Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.
Anyway, that's Neil's point. The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process. It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world. Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.
Which is why using the UN as a litmus test for taking action on almost anything is ridiculous.
It is a great tool for coordinating action when it allows it, but a terrible tool for vetting what action ought to be taken.
Well, to a degree. It never hurts to cross-check your intentions with those who a) will be affected by them b) has the means to screw you up
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2013, 09:48:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2013, 09:44:18 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 11, 2013, 09:35:43 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 11, 2013, 07:22:55 AM
That's only the five permanent members. There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.
I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.
Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.
Anyway, that's Neil's point. The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process. It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world. Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.
Which is why using the UN as a litmus test for taking action on almost anything is ridiculous.
It is a great tool for coordinating action when it allows it, but a terrible tool for vetting what action ought to be taken.
Well, to a degree. It never hurts to cross-check your intentions with those who a) will be affected by them b) has the means to screw you up
Of course, but you don't need the UN for that.
It is handy as a communications tool in that case, but again, my point is that it is ridiculous to operate under the idea that "You don't have UN approval" is a valid reason to not do something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 09:46:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
Backing down from a threat is the very definition of losing face.
I think Raz mistook your previous statement ("complete fold") to mean a loss for Syria rather than win.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2013, 10:02:24 AM
I think Raz mistook your previous statement ("complete fold") to mean a loss for Syria rather than win.
That's right. I think the Russian proposal, if enacted as stated, is very much a loss of face for Syria.
What threats has Syria made?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2013, 10:15:13 AM
What threats has Syria made?
Attack Israel, attack Jordan, attack Turkey. Their Iranian sponsor has threatened terrorist attacks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 09:46:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
Syrians don't get bombed. I'd say that's face saving.
Backing down from a threat is the very definition of losing face.
I disagree strongly. The point of threats is to get something, not to give an early warning to what you're going to do. Back down from a threat and getting nothing in return is losing face; your bluff has been called. Backing down from a threat as part of a negotiation is a sign of success.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2013, 10:15:13 AM
What threats has Syria made?
Attack Israel, attack Jordan, attack Turkey. Their Iranian sponsor has threatened terrorist attacks.
Assad doesn't even control Syria completely, he's in no position to start foreign adventures.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
I disagree strongly. The point of threats is to get something, not to give an early warning to what you're going to do. Back down from a threat and getting nothing in return is losing face; your bluff has been called. Backing down from a threat as part of a negotiation is a sign of success.
Maybe I'm not being clear. Syria loses face, not the US. The US now has more face than we know what to do with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2013, 10:20:49 AM
I disagree strongly. The point of threats is to get something, not to give an early warning to what you're going to do. Back down from a threat and getting nothing in return is losing face; your bluff has been called. Backing down from a threat as part of a negotiation is a sign of success.
Maybe I'm not being clear. Syria loses face, not the US. The US now has more face than we know what to do with.
Oh, I see. Yes, we've got us some good face.
Dirk Benedict approves of more face.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.
Don't see how Syria or Russia save. It's a complete fold.
I think so far Putin has played his hand pretty well, nothing certain but stands to make gains. Russia gets to save its Syrian ally, which even though Pres. Obama wasn't talking about taking him down, the US proposal had amendments by some Senators about destabilizing Assad. After Libya Russia probably didn't want to take the chance that the US might get a bit more adventuresome in Syria as well. Russia doesn't want that of course. Then Syria getting rid of its chemical weapons will be a long, slow process and I'd say not likely to be fully complied with anyway.
Maybe the most significant is that Russia would seem to be positioning itself as an ally of Iran and Syria, possibly pulling Iraq in a bit depending on how Iraqi politics go in the future. Seems Iraq is getting closer to Iran. So Russia will have a more solid presence in the Mid East, with some major ME nations.
All the while it remains to be seen how the US fares in the region. Seems a problematic position now with what's going on with Libya and perhaps with Eqypt since the US isn't so well liked now by the pro or anti-Morsi sides. Hard to say how Iraq will wind up either.
I think Poutine completely blew it. US public opinion running strongly against, Congressional vote unknown, and even if a strike were to transpire it would be a token, one time deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 12:25:56 PM
I think Poutine completely blew it. US public opinion running strongly against, Congressional vote unknown, and even if a strike were to transpire it would be a token, one time deal.
I don't think Putin did blow it. I think Obama and Putin have planned this out. Obama was afraid of Congress turning him down, but Putin's position isn't that secure either. He knows that if things escalate, he will look impotent, because at the end of the day, without nuclear weapons, Russia is still just a bug and US is the windshield.
*If* things escalate. Let's say even money on the strike. I figure the chances of the placement of US foot wear given a strike are somewhere around 1/100. Those are good odds for the bad guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 12:25:56 PM
I think Poutine completely blew it. US public opinion running strongly against, Congressional vote unknown, and even if a strike were to transpire it would be a token, one time deal.
That's the way I saw it too, to some extent, but trying to see what was in it for Russia. At the least they can take pressure off Assad by the proposal to remove chem weapons. That blunts a lot of the current animosity and buys Assad time to continue the war against the Rebels. And I really doubt that Assad will give all of it up, but this might still take a lot of the attention off of the overall war.
Russia gains by being a stronger player in the region, and would seem to gain some status in the Mid East.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 12:34:20 PM
*If* things escalate. Let's say even money on the strike. I figure the chances of the placement of US foot wear given a strike are somewhere around 1/100. Those are good odds for the bad guys.
I think that with all the tough talk of the last couple of weeks, the potential for the shit to hit the fan was pretty high.
And to think, all this from an offhand remark, a gaf, spoken by Sec State Kerry! US State Dept quickly said that Kerry was just making a rhetorical statement but immediately the Russians jumped at the opening he made.
As for that, why didn't the President or someone on the staff or Sec State Kerry come up with this idea a few weeks ago, as a diplomatic settlement over the use of the weapons, instead of an attack?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:25:44 AMThe US now has more face than we know what to do with.
:lol:
Sometimes you have a great way with words :cheers:
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2013, 12:51:24 PM
And to think, all this from an offhand remark, a gaf, spoken by Sec State Kerry! US State Dept quickly said that Kerry was just making a rhetorical statement but immediately the Russians jumped at the opening he made.
As for that, why didn't the President or someone on the staff or Sec State Kerry come up with this idea a few weeks ago, as a diplomatic settlement over the use of the weapons, instead of an attack?
Russia, as Syria's closest ally, could suggest this idea as a way of averting the potential attack. Without the potential attack this doesnt work very well. Imagine how much more this would have been watered down if this was the opening position of the US.
I'm honestly not seeing how any of the powers involved lose face. Syrians threats were predicated on a US led attack. If there is no attack there is no reason to follow through with the threats.
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2013, 12:51:24 PM
And to think, all this from an offhand remark, a gaf, spoken by Sec State Kerry! US State Dept quickly said that Kerry was just making a rhetorical statement but immediately the Russians jumped at the opening he made.
As for that, why didn't the President or someone on the staff or Sec State Kerry come up with this idea a few weeks ago, as a diplomatic settlement over the use of the weapons, instead of an attack?
Maybe I don't understand the details of the proposal, I haven't been following this too closely, but isn't it that some international force takes control of Syrian chemical stockpiles? If so, how is this going to be resolved? Presumably someone has to send units into Syria to accomplish that. I don't know who is up for that. I would think that the US is not.
I think it was Colbert who made the analogy: It's like if you behead your coworker and they take away your axe. You get to keep your job and your hatchet.
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2013, 03:08:39 PM
I think it was Colbert who made the analogy: It's like if you behead your coworker and they take away your axe. You get to keep your job and your hatchet.
Kinda misses the point though. We don't care that he's killing people. It's that he's using gas to kill people.
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2013, 03:08:39 PM
I think it was Colbert who made the analogy: It's like if you behead your coworker and they take away your axe. You get to keep your job and your hatchet.
Better to go vigilante and blow up the guys home plus those of his friends. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 11, 2013, 06:02:33 PM
Better to go vigilante and blow up the guys home plus those of his friends. :P
Not sure I agree about the friends, but yea.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2013, 06:01:46 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2013, 03:08:39 PM
I think it was Colbert who made the analogy: It's like if you behead your coworker and they take away your axe. You get to keep your job and your hatchet.
Kinda misses the point though. We don't care that he's killing people. It's that he's using gas to kill people.
That's the hatchet.
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2013, 06:16:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2013, 06:01:46 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2013, 03:08:39 PM
I think it was Colbert who made the analogy: It's like if you behead your coworker and they take away your axe. You get to keep your job and your hatchet.
Kinda misses the point though. We don't care that he's killing people. It's that he's using gas to kill people.
That's the hatchet.
I thought it was the axe.
Interesting report on the fighting over the Christian town of Maaloula:
The top video is worth watching, includes combat footage of the mainly local government militia trying to retake the town, most of whom appear to be Christians, one says
"Tell the EU and the Americans, we sent you St.Paul 2,000 years ago to take you from the darkness. And you sent us terrorists to kill us."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24051440 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24051440)
Quote
A BBC correspondent in Syria has said the battle for an ancient Christian town is continuing, despite reports that government forces had retaken it.
Jeremy Bowen said that a heavy gunfight with rebels was continuing in Maaloula, with smoke rising into the sky.
He added that he had not seen evidence confirming religious sites had been damaged by al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.
Fighting over the town, 55km (34 miles) north of Damascus, began last week after rebels attacked a checkpoint.
Free Syrian Army (FSA) units and members of the jihadist al-Nusra Front occupied Maaloula for several hours on Thursday before withdrawing when their positions were bombed by government warplanes
Government forces are in Maaloula, but there is still fighting going on. I've heard a lot of heavy fire and one or two large explosions as well. Their opponents from the al-Nusra Front - the armed rebel group that is allied with al-Qaeda - appear to still be in the town. I've seen about half a dozen wounded government soldiers driven back at speed towards their rear echelon.
I've spoken to some local members of the National Defence Forces, a pro-government militia. They say they are fighting for their town and the fact it was a place where Christians and Muslims once lived side by side. They say they are fighting against the people they regard as terrorists.
The town's residents fled in a hurry to Damascus when the rebels first moved in. They are very upset and angry about what happened. Some told me that when they left, the al-Nusra Front desecrated some of their churches. There is quite a bit of damage to the town, but I can't see considerable damage to the holy places. In fact, I can see a big statue of the Virgin Mary that is very much intact.
....
Wait, I thought St. Paul was from Tarsus.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2013, 07:26:25 PM
Wait, I thought St. Paul was from Tarsus.
I think he was talking as a Christian in the middle east ?
edit:And I guess me might have been meaning literally too, given St.Paul's 'road to Damascus' conversion as he neared the city; without Damascus no St.Paul, just Saul ?
Yeah, I thought about the road to Damascus but they didn't send him to or from Damascus and this is some small town 30 miles from Damascus. Though I suppose "St. Paul stopped by here 2,000 years ago to pick up some ice on the way to to Damascus, you owe us", doesn't carry the same weight.
We didn't send shit to kill you, dickhead. Try playing your guilt trip on some other sucker.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:57:39 PM
We didn't send shit to kill you, dickhead. Try playing your guilt trip on some other sucker.
While I'm glad you aren't trying to kill me Yi, I don't know why you are hostile.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2013, 11:06:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:57:39 PM
We didn't send shit to kill you, dickhead. Try playing your guilt trip on some other sucker.
While I'm glad you aren't trying to kill me Yi, I don't know why you are hostile.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2013, 11:06:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:57:39 PM
We didn't send shit to kill you, dickhead. Try playing your guilt trip on some other sucker.
While I'm glad you aren't trying to kill me Yi, I don't know why you are hostile.
So if Yi's not the one doing it, who is? :ph34r:
Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet. Pretty unusual to say the least for Putin to publish an Op-Ed in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
QuoteA Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 11, 2013, 11:43:22 PM
Pretty unusual to say the least for Putin to publish an Op-Ed in the NY Times.
Not really; plenty of world leaders have done it. Shithead.
Jesus, Putin is just kicking the holy shit out of our President.
I thought it was pretty transparent.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2013, 11:10:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2013, 11:06:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2013, 10:57:39 PM
We didn't send shit to kill you, dickhead. Try playing your guilt trip on some other sucker.
While I'm glad you aren't trying to kill me Yi, I don't know why you are hostile.
So if Yi's not the one doing it, who is? :ph34r:
I dunno. I've offended many people in my life. My very
odor is considered offensive, or so I'm told.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2013, 12:31:52 AM
Jesus, Putin is just kicking the holy shit out of our President.
It's a nice diversion, but nobody is talking about "spreading democracy" in Syria. The issue is the use of gas. If Assad wants to kill people, fine. He's just going to have to do the good old fashioned way. There is no need to kill the dog, just smack on the nose with a rolled up news paper.
QuoteMy working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
:face:
You know, the blind stumbling around by Obama on this whole thing while Putin and others slap him around is really not what I expected when this whole thing started. It is starting to be painful to watch.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2013, 04:05:15 AM
QuoteMy working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
:face:
You know, the blind stumbling around by Obama on this whole thing while Putin and others slap him around is really not what I expected when this whole thing started. It is starting to be painful to watch.
Though we are pretty exceptional.
It's weird to hear a Russian leader talking about God. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2013, 06:58:55 AM
It's weird to hear a Russian leader talking about God. :hmm:
Yes! He's being a bad communist.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 12, 2013, 07:23:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2013, 06:58:55 AM
It's weird to hear a Russian leader talking about God. :hmm:
Yes! He's being a bad communist.
He's a Putinist.
I started a point by point refutation of the putin letter, but found out that virtually nothing in it is both true and relevant.
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2013, 06:58:55 AM
It's weird to hear a Russian leader talking about God. :hmm:
One of his main supporters is the Orthodox Church, so ...
Still, when did we last have such a ruthless, macchiavellian leader of a major power? :wub:
Quote from: Syt on September 12, 2013, 07:42:44 AM
Still, when did we last have such a ruthless, macchiavellian leader of a major power? :wub:
1974.
QuoteI carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday
I found this line to be goofy.
Putin or his staff writers writes likes those insufferable Euros at EUOT.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 11, 2013, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 11, 2013, 12:51:24 PM
And to think, all this from an offhand remark, a gaf, spoken by Sec State Kerry! US State Dept quickly said that Kerry was just making a rhetorical statement but immediately the Russians jumped at the opening he made.
As for that, why didn't the President or someone on the staff or Sec State Kerry come up with this idea a few weeks ago, as a diplomatic settlement over the use of the weapons, instead of an attack?
Maybe I don't understand the details of the proposal, I haven't been following this too closely, but isn't it that some international force takes control of Syrian chemical stockpiles? If so, how is this going to be resolved? Presumably someone has to send units into Syria to accomplish that. I don't know who is up for that. I would think that the US is not.
That's my understanding, that international troops or workers under UN authority would take control and remove the chems. A very messy and iffy idea it would seem to find the stuff, find anything hidden, and to actually move around the country in the midst of a civil war. Proposing it now by Russia I would think gives Assad and the Russians some cover to avoid US strikes, and buys time, which I would say is the major purpose, whether the weapons are given up or not.
If the US had proposed it before and if it was denied then perhaps the US/allies would have had more political cover to make the strikes. And if Syria had agreed at that plan a that time then the same attempt at a messy process would be tried, I guess.
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2013, 06:12:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 11, 2013, 06:02:33 PM
Better to go vigilante and blow up the guys home plus those of his friends. :P
Not sure I agree about the friends, but yea.
We have to attck his friends. One missile is all it takes otherwise. We need more targets.
Iteresting letter from Putin, good english too :).
It is almost impressive how Obama has mishandled this. He has gone wrong at every single step. A mere incompetent would have gotten a couple things right by sheer accident, but Obama managed to avoid that.
Yikes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
It is almost impressive how Obama has mishandled this. He has gone wrong at every single step. A mere incompetent would have gotten a couple things right by sheer accident, but Obama managed to avoid that.
What are you talking about? It takes a great deal of skill and effort to make Putin look like a statesman.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
It is almost impressive how Obama has mishandled this. He has gone wrong at every single step. A mere incompetent would have gotten a couple things right by sheer accident, but Obama managed to avoid that.
Please elaborate. From where I sit the Putin backdown looks like a massive victory for the US and I honestly don't get the criticism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 10:51:15 AM
Please elaborate. From where I sit the Putin backdown looks like a massive victory for the US and I honestly don't get the criticism.
Putin backed down from nothing. He always wanted a diplomatic resolution and it looks like he will get it, at least he will if Obama has any sense at all and takes the lifeline that has been thrown to him. More importantly for him, he has made Russia relevant on the world stage, and not as a mere spoiler.
What exactly has the US won?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 10:51:15 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
It is almost impressive how Obama has mishandled this. He has gone wrong at every single step. A mere incompetent would have gotten a couple things right by sheer accident, but Obama managed to avoid that.
Please elaborate. From where I sit the Putin backdown looks like a massive victory for the US and I honestly don't get the criticism.
:huh: What the hell you been watching.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
It is almost impressive how Obama has mishandled this. He has gone wrong at every single step. A mere incompetent would have gotten a couple things right by sheer accident, but Obama managed to avoid that.
I think canceling the summit with Putin after the Snowden asylum was another blunder for Obama/win for Putin.
Which ultimately doesn't matter. People know what Putin is about. I doubt Obama and his team are so focused on these issues anyway.
Ideally Obama should have attacked (missiles/bombs) immediately (1-3 days) when evidence of chemical weapons use was found, ideally with prearranged support from France and/or Britain. Failing that there should have been a delayed attack (missiles/bombs, 4-7 days) with attempts to gather support. Failing that there should have been increased military and humanitarian support for the less psycho rebel factions and setting up of covert raids using their help to destroy the chemical stockpiles that could be identified. Failing that you sit around waiting for Congress to do nothing for a long time while letting Putin set up more delays and opportunities for Syria.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 11:00:05 AM
What exactly has the US won?
We hadn't even reached a decision yet on whether to smack the bad guys or not, and the bad guys peed their pants and ran away.
Although in the stalling tactic category I just heard on NPR that Assad has said he will accept the deal only on the condition that the US give up the threat of attacking.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
:huh: What the hell you been watching.
Everything except the geezers.
Quote from: frunk on September 12, 2013, 11:21:07 AM
Ideally Obama should have attacked (missiles/bombs) immediately (1-3 days) when evidence of chemical weapons use was found, ideally with prearranged support from France and/or Britain. Failing that there should have been a delayed attack (missiles/bombs, 4-7 days) with attempts to gather support. Failing that there should have been increased military and humanitarian support for the less psycho rebel factions and setting up of covert raids using their help to destroy the chemical stockpiles that could be identified.
Any of those would have been viable courses of action. It also would have been viable to say we considered a military strike and concluded it would have no useful effect in the present circumstances but all options are open and we may act as appropriate at a time and place of our choosing. Maybe not optimal but viable.
Drawing the line in the sand in an area far from vital to US interests was a big error in the first place, but having done so there was a year to do some basic contigency planning about what to do if the line was crossed. Clearly that was never done, unless the plan was "improvise and flail about in confusion".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 11:22:50 AM
the bad guys peed their pants and ran away.
When did that happen?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 12:05:20 PM
When did that happen?
Sometime late last week? I was on vacation at the time and not paying that much attention to dates and such.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 12:04:25 PM
Clearly that was never done, unless the plan was "improvise and flail about in confusion".
Yeah, that is the thing that is the most damning. There was a strongly worded warning not to use chemical weapons but then everyone involved in issuing the warning appears to have been caught off guard that they were actually used. It seems apparant the working assumption was that the warning would be enough and no further thought was given to other potential outcomes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 12:09:46 PM
Sometime late last week? I was on vacation at the time and not paying that much attention to dates and such.
Has Assad given up his chemical weapons? No.
Is he going to anytime soon? No.
Is there anything stopping him from using them again? No.
Has his position in the war been compromised? No on the contrary the US decision to negotiate protocols with him state-to-state arguably enhances his claim to legitimacy.
Has he or his regime been prejudiced in any way? Not that I can see.
Vogue says Assad is A-OK.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 11:00:05 AM
More importantly for him, he has made Russia relevant on the world stage, and not as a mere spoiler.
This I think is the most important aspect, while all the attention is on what the US and Pres Obama are doing or might do regarding an attack, or the diplomacy over Syria giving up WMDs. Russia gains in the Mid East by having more influence and stature over all through negotiating this issue. Russia helps Assad greatly here, and so gains big with Syria's ally Iran as well. Since Russia has been mostly on the opposite side with US, European moves on Iranian nuke development this adds to Russia's influence. If Iraq can be pulled into that orbit as it becomes closer to Iran that's another potentially big plus for Russia.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 12:15:07 PM
Is there anything stopping him from using them again? No.
Of course there is. Both Assad and his principle sponsor have publicly committed to a process that will prevent their use. Assad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.
QuoteAssad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.8bitbrigade.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F954-not-sure-if-serious.jpg&hash=3ca93851700cfb63deff2c3f28ba63adf593e0d3)
Serious. The US was discussing strikes, Putin proposed a means to verify that Assad will not use chems. How else would you interpret it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 01:49:30 PM
Of course there is. Both Assad and his principle sponsor have publicly committed to a process that will prevent their use. Assad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.
I don't think most people consider those commitments credible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 12:04:25 PM
Clearly that was never done, unless the plan was "improvise and flail about in confusion".
Yeah, that is the thing that is the most damning. There was a strongly worded warning not to use chemical weapons but then everyone involved in issuing the warning appears to have been caught off guard that they were actually used. It seems apparant the working assumption was that the warning would be enough and no further thought was given to other potential outcomes.
Worse, the working assumption appears to have been that an international consensus of some sort was necessary to enact the threat already made - and then Obama could not obtain the consensus.
He should either have obtained the consensus in advance of the threat, gone ahead and delivered on the threat without the consensus, or have avoided making the threat in the first place.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 02:14:26 PM
Serious. The US was discussing strikes, Putin proposed a means to verify that Assad will not use chems. How else would you interpret it?
The point of striking was not to prevent use of chemical weapons, but to punish the use of chemical weapons.
The "credible threat" was made months ago, and Assad clearly was not deterred by it.
I guess we could make more threats, but since we didn't follow through on the first one, I don't see how additional ones can be presumed to be MORE credible than the one we backed off from, and I certainly don't see how we can presume that Assad (much less anyone else) is more likely to be deterred by what, by definition, must be seen as a less credible threat.
It's the "Don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't Cash" school of diplomacy. ;)
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 01:49:30 PM
Of course there is. Both Assad and his principle sponsor have publicly committed to a process that will prevent their use. Assad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.
I don't think most people consider those commitments credible.
They seem to do the trick for Yi :huh: :lol:
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 02:15:21 PM
I don't think most people consider those commitments credible.
That's fine. I would however like to point out that Putin has not been in the habit of making public statements and later pretending he didn't. Russia is a fooked up country but it's not North Korea. Probably even more than the US Russia needs to safeguard the credibility of its threats and promises.
So now we're in a position where all the parties have agreed, or are at least paying lip service to, the notion that Syria should not use chems and that their word is not good enough.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
It's the "Don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't Cash" school of diplomacy. ;)
On the other hand, when he made that threat, nobody even thought twice about it. Nobody was all "ZOMG! TEH PREZ TOTALLY COMMITTED US TO THIS NEW POLICY!!!!".
This has been a long standing foreign policy standpoint of the West for a very long time. I cannot fault Obama for making the threat, since it was not even a new threat. It was a standard threat that has, in my view, always been there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 02:28:41 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 02:15:21 PM
I don't think most people consider those commitments credible.
That's fine. I would however like to point out that Putin has not been in the habit of making public statements and later pretending he didn't.
:huh:
Russia's first position was that the Rebels used the chemical weapons
@Throbby:
That's not true. I thought it was retarded the second it came out of his mouth.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2013, 02:29:46 PM
This has been a long standing foreign policy standpoint of the West for a very long time. I cannot fault Obama for making the threat, since it was not even a new threat. It was a standard threat that has, in my view, always been there.
Agreed. What is new is the dithering. Now anyone who wishes to use chemical weapons has learned what the real risk might be.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2013, 02:29:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
It's the "Don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't Cash" school of diplomacy. ;)
On the other hand, when he made that threat, nobody even thought twice about it. Nobody was all "ZOMG! TEH PREZ TOTALLY COMMITTED US TO THIS NEW POLICY!!!!".
This has been a long standing foreign policy standpoint of the West for a very long time. I cannot fault Obama for making the threat, since it was not even a new threat. It was a standard threat that has, in my view, always been there.
As I pointed out above, his mistake was in assuming he needed an international consensus to make good on the threat, without knowing in advance that he had it. He should either have had the consensus lined up, known he was going ahead without consensus if necessary, or not made the threat.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 02:30:20 PM
:huh:
Russia's first position was that the Rebels used the chemical weapons
And?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 02:30:20 PM
:huh:
Russia's first position was that the Rebels used the chemical weapons
And?
I see, Putin is not the only one that can pretend he didnt say something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 02:53:25 PM
I see, Putin is not the only one that can pretend he didnt say something.
Your conclusion does not follow. His proposal was not dependent on an admission that Assad has already used chems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 02:58:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 02:53:25 PM
I see, Putin is not the only one that can pretend he didnt say something.
Your conclusion does not follow. His proposal was not dependent on an admission that Assad has already used chems.
Fair enough. But given your logic, do you still think that the bad guy peed his pants and ran off? You now seem to suggest that Russia gets to continue to deny any use of chemical weapons while make vague overtures of some kind of oversight. What are the chances that the next time Syria uses chemical weapons Russia simply says "see I told you it was the Rebels. All the Syrian chemical weapons have been accounted for"
Yep, this is definitely one where someone is peeing their pants and it aint the Syrian leadership.
I'm pretty sure most of us thought the original threat was pretty silly since we didn't think he was going to follow through. Making the threat tied his hands in case Assad called his bluff, Assad did call his bluff and since then Obama has been dithering.
BTW, Kerry should be fired for making up policy on the fly and giving Assad and Putin the out they needed to distract from the fact that ASSAD GASSED A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN DAMASCUS.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
What are the chances that the next time Syria uses chemical weapons Russia simply says "see I told you it was the Rebels. All the Syrian chemical weapons have been accounted for"
Nobody is going to accept a monitoring regime that is dependent on Russian good faith.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:05:00 PM
I'm pretty sure most of us thought the original threat was pretty silly since we didn't think he was going to follow through.
I honestly must just be a bit naive, because I never even considered that a US president would not follow through on such a threat.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:05:00 PM
BTW, Kerry should be fired for making up policy on the fly and giving Assad and Putin the out they needed to distract from the fact that ASSAD GASSED A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN DAMASCUS.
Apparently Assad has peed his pants and has run off somewhere. Isnt that good enough for you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:05:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
What are the chances that the next time Syria uses chemical weapons Russia simply says "see I told you it was the Rebels. All the Syrian chemical weapons have been accounted for"
Nobody is going to accept a monitoring regime that is dependent on Russian good faith.
A couple of months ago I would have said nobody is going to accept a chemical attack on a civilian population. But even if your assumption holds - how many years do you think it will take to negotiate the necessary protocals?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:05:00 PM
BTW, Kerry should be fired for making up policy on the fly and giving Assad and Putin the out they needed to distract from the fact that ASSAD GASSED A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN DAMASCUS.
Apparently Assad has peed his pants and has run off somewhere. Isnt that good enough for you?
To be honest, the best information out there is that Assad didn't actually order the attack. The order was given by another high level member of the clique as a reaction to an assassination attempt on Assad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 03:08:19 PM
A couple of months ago I would have said nobody is going to accept a chemical attack on a civilian population. But even if your assumption holds - how many years do you think it will take to negotiate the necessary protocals?
If it's going to happen, 2 months for an agreed framework, 2 more months to get it up and running. If a chem attack takes place during that time, everything gets deleted and we're back to square one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:05:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
What are the chances that the next time Syria uses chemical weapons Russia simply says "see I told you it was the Rebels. All the Syrian chemical weapons have been accounted for"
Nobody is going to accept a monitoring regime that is dependent on Russian good faith.
What does lack of acceptance look like?
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:13:42 PM
What does lack of acceptance look like?
It looks like the president giving a speech and Congress holding a vote.
And our allies the British and Canadians issuing statements of moral support.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:13:42 PM
What does lack of acceptance look like?
It looks like the president giving a speech and Congress holding a vote.
And our allies the British and Canadians issuing statements of moral support.
Point is, if it doesn't look like the US smashing the shit outta Assad (with or without consensus support), it looks like a win for him.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:31:21 PM
Point is, if it doesn't look like the US smashing the shit outta Assad (with or without consensus support), it looks like a win for him.
Debateable. I think if the US does not smash and Assad never uses chems again it looks very much like a win for the good guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:33:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:31:21 PM
Point is, if it doesn't look like the US smashing the shit outta Assad (with or without consensus support), it looks like a win for him.
Debateable. I think if the US does not smash and Assad never uses chems again it looks very much like a win for the good guys.
It isn't all about Assad. It is in part about the next time the US says to some bad guys "X behaviour is unacceptable and
will be met with force".
Everyone, particularly said bad guys, will be thinking "last time, what the US mean by 'force' was a couple of weeks of dithering, followed by a diplomatic agreement involving Russia, followed by months of wrangling, followed by the 'remedial measures' being found 'unacceptable', followed by speeches ... ".
Didn't know Putin was held in such esteem around here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/russia_s_role_in_syria_putin_s_new_york_times_op_ed_is_all_hypocrisy_and.html
what this guy said..
Giving Putin the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in this would be the turd icing on this particular shit cake. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:38:43 PM
It isn't all about Assad. It is in part about the next time the US says to some bad guys "X behaviour is unacceptable and will be met with force".
Everyone, particularly said bad guys, will be thinking "last time, what the US mean by 'force' was a couple of weeks of dithering, followed by a diplomatic agreement involving Russia, followed by months of wrangling, followed by the 'remedial measures' being found 'unacceptable', followed by speeches ... ".
....followed by the bad guy peeing his pants when it looked like the US was starting to get serious.
Can it reasonably be interpreted that there will be one get out of jail free card before there are serious repercussions? Sure. If you think that's suboptimal, lobby the other weenie countries to pitch in.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:48:51 PM
Giving Putin the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in this would be the turd icing on this particular shit cake. :lol:
Don't worry, Jagland the head of the committe hates putin's guts... though he'd never say it out-loud.
If wars were still fought the way they were, we would not be in all these mess. Since Korea and Vietnam. <_<
War should be destroy or conquer. If not worth nuking or taking over, not worth getting involved.
This message brought to you by Lustindarkness for President Committee.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2013, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2013, 03:05:00 PM
I'm pretty sure most of us thought the original threat was pretty silly since we didn't think he was going to follow through.
I honestly must just be a bit naive, because I never even considered that a US president would not follow through on such a threat.
Other Presidents have always followed through, I don't think he was just throwing it out there; particularly since he's consistently endorsed our long-standing policy on non-proliferation.
And to think Obama is weak on action is selling the man a bit short, considering he's been droning the shit out of the Third World on a daily basis and violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill a certain High Value Target--which turned out not to be just election year bullshit.
Quote from: Berkut on September 12, 2013, 02:29:46 PM
On the other hand, when he made that threat, nobody even thought twice about it. Nobody was all "ZOMG! TEH PREZ TOTALLY COMMITTED US TO THIS NEW POLICY!!!!".
This has been a long standing foreign policy standpoint of the West for a very long time. I cannot fault Obama for making the threat, since it was not even a new threat. It was a standard threat that has, in my view, always been there.
Yea I think a lot of people, especially the media, are making way to much out of the "red line" comment. He didn't come up with that red line, he endorsed it, and he really shouldn't have needed to. It's a no-brainer.
His mistake wasn't that comment, his mistake was in thinking such a response needed special permission
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2013, 03:48:51 PM
Giving Putin the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in this would be the turd icing on this particular shit cake. :lol:
He accomplished more than a certain presidential recipient I can think of ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
It's a no-brainer.
What do you mean by this?
It's been a well-known cornerstone of US non-proliferation policy since at least 1990.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
It's a no-brainer.
What do you mean by this?
There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 05:21:44 PM
There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.
Based on what? Saddam gassed Khurds with no immediate consequenses. Egypt is alleged to have used gas in Yemen and it didn't even make the front page.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 05:21:44 PM
There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.
Based on what? Saddam gassed Khurds with no immediate consequenses. Egypt is alleged to have used gas in Yemen and it didn't even make the front page.
When was that? In the 1960s?
For the record, Iraq's use of chemical agents against Iranian troops and towns in the last years of their war, was a clear breach of the proceeding Geneva Protocol and no one in the west did anything about it, not even riding a white charger up onto the moral high ground for show.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 03:50:27 PM
....followed by the bad guy peeing his pants when it looked like the US was starting to get serious
See when pants are peed in there should be a pair of pants one can point to and say - there is the pee. And that is what is missing here. The bad guy has given up exactly nothing. All he has done is to agree in principle to a frameword to engage in further negotations. That is not surrendering any right. That is being accorded recognition by a superpower. It is a plus.
Yes, thanks mongers.
The fact is the US has *never* used force to punish the use of chemical weapons.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 05:44:10 PM
See when pants are peed in there should be a pair of pants one can point to and say - there is the pee. And that is what is missing here. The bad guy has given up exactly nothing. All he has done is to agree in principle to a frameword to engage in further negotations. That is not surrendering any right. That is being accorded recognition by a superpower. It is a plus.
He has agreed in principle to surrender at-will use of his stocks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2013, 04:50:49 PM
And to think Obama is weak on action
No he is not. If he elects not to act here, it is because he realizes the futility. Overall, his performance on foreign policy has been quite good over the years. IMO. But he took his eye off the ball on this one. And missed the sign, dropped his bat mid-pitch and then fell over the third base side blocking his own runner trying to steal home.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:45:36 PM
He has agreed in principle to surrender at-will use of his stocks.
That plus a nickel equals five cents.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 05:21:44 PM
There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.
Based on what? Saddam gassed Khurds with no immediate consequenses. Egypt is alleged to have used gas in Yemen and it didn't even make the front page.
Based on
a) our founding principles
and
b) the need to demonstrate to would-be strongmen that the cost of such an action will outweigh the benefits
I don't see why the failure to so demonstrate in the past should weigh heavily on our course of action today.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 05:42:28 PM
For the record, Iraq use of chemical agents against Iranian troops and towns in the last years of their war, was a clear breach of the proceeding Geneva Protocol and no one in the west did anything about it, not even riding a white charger up onto the moral high ground for show.
For the record, we know that, DraftWarMongers. And for the record, both the UN and UNSC issued several resolutions over the use of chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 War. So there's your white charger up your ass.
However, there's a bit more complexity involved in the international community's ability to deal with two nations in a large-scale war than there is in dealing with a single state's repression of its rebels.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 05:48:11 PM
That plus a nickel equals five cents.
Pithy.
With a verifiable regime Assad will no longer be able to claim the other guys did it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 05:48:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:45:36 PM
He has agreed in principle to surrender at-will use of his stocks.
That plus a nickel equals five cents.
No way he's going to give up his only counter to the Zionist Entity's nuclear deterrent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:50:16 PM
With a verifiable regime Assad will no longer be able to claim the other guys did it.
That is true but no verifiable regime exists other than in some imagined future.
Don't get me wrong, as a face saving compromise it works to extricate Obama from the hole he dug himself into. But as to whether Assad and his cronies are laughing or crying about this proposal the smart money is on the yuks.
My guess is they are under a lot of pressure and not doing a lot of laughing, what with the civil war and all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 05:44:10 PM
See when pants are peed in there should be a pair of pants one can point to and say - there is the pee. And that is what is missing here.
Maybe he shat them instead?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2013, 05:49:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 05:42:28 PM
For the record, Iraq use of chemical agents against Iranian troops and towns in the last years of their war, was a clear breach of the proceeding Geneva Protocol and no one in the west did anything about it, not even riding a white charger up onto the moral high ground for show.
For the record, we know that, DraftWarMongers. And for the record, both the UN and UNSC issued several resolutions over the use of chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 War. So there's your white charger up your ass.
However, there's a bit more complexity involved in the international community's ability to deal with two nations in a large-scale war than there is in dealing with a single state's repression of its rebels.
I'm gonna make a wild guess and say in none of those resolutions was Iraq identified as the sole user of chemical weapons, despite there being ample evidence. In stark contrast the description of what has happened in Syria.
And I'd be somewhat surprised if US took active steps to degrade rather than enhance the effects of the chemical weapons strikes, once their use became known.
Quote
RESOLUTION 582 (1986)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2666th meeting on 24 February 1986
......
Noting that both Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare done at Geneva on 17 June 1925,
......
2. Also deplores the escalation of the conflict, especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian centres, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol;
....
Quote
RESOLUTION 598 (1987)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2750th meeting on 20 July 1987
.......
Deploring also the bombing of purely civilian population centers, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict, and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol,
......
Quote
RESOLUTION 612 (1988)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2812th meeting on 9 May 1988
The Security Council,
Having considered the report of 25 April 1988 (S/19823) of the Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,
Dismayed by the Mission's conclusions that chemical weapons continue to be used in the conflict and that their use has been on an even more intensive scale than before,
1. Affirms the urgent necessity of strict observance of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925;
2. Condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq contrary to the obligations under the Geneva Protocol;
3. Expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons in accordance with their obligations under the Geneva Protocol;
4. Calls upon all States to continue to apply or to establish strict control of the export to the parties to the conflict of chemical products serving for the production of chemical weapons;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter and expresses its determination to review the implementation of this resolution.
Here you go, I was wrong here's the UN severe sensure of Iraq over chemical weapons.
Quote
RESOLUTION 620 (1988)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2825th meeting on 26 August 1988
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 612 (1988),
Having considered the reports of 20 and 25 July and 19 August 1988 (S/20060 and Add.1, S/20063 and Add.1, S/20134) of the missions dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,
Deeply dismayed by the missions' conclusions that there had been continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and that such use against Iranians had become more intense and frequent,
Profoundly concerned by the danger of possible use of chemical weapons in the future,
Bearing in mind the current negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on the complete and effective prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and on their destruction,
Determined to intensify its efforts to end all use of chemical weapons in violation of international obligations now and in the future,
1. Condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq, in violation of obligations under the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and in defiance of its resolution 612 (1988);
2. Encourages the Secretary-General to carry out promptly investigations, in response to allegations brought to his attention by any Member State concerning the possible use of chemical and bacteriological (biological) or toxin weapons that may constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol or other relevant rules of customary international law, in order to ascertain the facts of the matter, and to report the results;
3. Calls upon all States to continue to apply, to establish or to strengthen strict control of the export of chemical products serving for the production of chemical weapons, in particular to parties to a conflict, when it is established or when there is substantial reason to believe that they have used chemical weapons in violation of international obligations;
4. Decides to consider immediately, taking into account the investigations of the Secretary-General, appropriate and effective measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, should there be any future use of chemical weapons in violation of international law, wherever and by whomever committed.
In case you missed it, below is the sum total of UN security council criticism on the most deadly and widespread use of chemical weapons since the UN's founding.
Quote
Deeply dismayed by the missions' conclusions that there had been continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and that such use against Iranians had become more intense and frequent,
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 05:54:01 PM
That is true but no verifiable regime exists other than in some imagined future.
Don't get me wrong, as a face saving compromise it works to extricate Obama from the hole he dug himself into. But as to whether Assad and his cronies are laughing or crying about this proposal the smart money is on the yuks.
Of course it exists in the future. So what? Putin and Assad have committed to a process. They can renege, they can welch, they can waffle, they can weasel, but presumably those acts will have consequences. It's not as if Congress had a statutory window within which they had to authorize force or lose the privilege.
Fuck the Persian. Nuke 'em.
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 05:49:00 PM
Based on
a) our founding principles
and
b) the need to demonstrate to would-be strongmen that the cost of such an action will outweigh the benefits
I don't see why the failure to so demonstrate in the past should weigh heavily on our course of action today.
There is a vigorous on-going debate right now whether based on a) and b) or anything else we need to strike. Half the public is against. Congress is split. You concede that we have never acted on this principle previously. I don't see how that adds up to a no-brainer. Unless you're using no-brainer in a way I'm not familiar with.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 06:07:23 PM
More DraftWarMongers bullshit
So what's your point, DraftWarMongers, other than your usual argument of moral equivalence bullshit?
Because we didn't do anything against Iraq 25 years ago, there's every reason to accept the use of chemical weapons now, especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2013, 07:19:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 06:07:23 PM
More DraftWarMongers bullshit
So what's your point, DraftWarMongers, other than your usual argument of moral equivalence bullshit?
Because we didn't do anything against Iraq 25 years ago, there's every reason to accept the use of chemical weapons now, especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?
There's simply no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with you if you're resorting to silly name calling, so it's terminated.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 07:35:33 PM
There's simply no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with you if you're resorting to silly name calling, so it's terminated.
When you start reverting to your EUOT DWM persona circa 2003, it's going to catch poo.
I mean, really: the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War? You're not connecting the dots here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2013, 07:50:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 07:35:33 PM
There's simply no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with you if you're resorting to silly name calling, so it's terminated.
When you start reverting to your EUOT DWM persona circa 2003, it's going to catch poo.
I mean, really: the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War? You're not connecting the dots here.
I recall you cheer-leading for the operation and subsequently changing your tune, once the reality of the emerging mess eventually sunk in.
But your yourself were recalling the 1980s citing:
Quote
especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?
Which anyway held no water, given the subsequent US intelligences efforts that helped Saddam in targeting chemical weapons attacks.
I don't care for war and getting sent to them, but if not for the Iraq war languish would not be here.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 12, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
I don't care for war and getting sent to them, but if not for the Iraq war languish would not be here.
I don't know. I don't know how much time we could have continued to spend at P'dox OT. Particularly as the company gained wider recognition.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 12, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
I don't care for war and getting sent to them, but if not for the Iraq war languish would not be here.
You've got some serious silver-lining going on there. :P
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
I recall you cheer-leading for the operation and subsequently changing your tune.
I recall arguing on the legality of the action, not the necessity. May be a small difference to you, but it works for lawyers.
I wanted to go after Iran after the Axis of Evil speech, but nooooo.....
QuoteBut your yourself were recalling the 1980s citing:
Quote
especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?
Which anyway held no water, given the subsequent US intelligences efforts that helped Saddam in targeting chemical weapons attacks.
In a battlefield deployment against Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements utilizing human wave attacks during the Karbala Offensive? Sorry, but I'm not going to be shedding any tears over that call.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 05:50:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2013, 05:48:11 PM
That plus a nickel equals five cents.
Pithy.
With a verifiable regime Assad will no longer be able to claim the other guys did it.
Poor delusional Yi :(
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2013, 08:18:09 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 12, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
I don't care for war and getting sent to them, but if not for the Iraq war languish would not be here.
You've got some serious silver-lining going on there. :P
Yeah dude, that's some weak ass string-pulling there. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 07:17:32 PM
There is a vigorous on-going debate right now whether based on a) and b) or anything else we need to strike. Half the public is against. Congress is split.
Really? I haven't seen it. I've seen a lot about Obama having to stick to his red line comment as if he made that up, a lot about having to "appear strong". A lot of knee-jerk pro- and anti-war sentiment.
Very little about principles or long-term consequences.
Quote from: Maximus on September 12, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
Really? I haven't seen it. I've seen a lot about Obama having to stick to his red line comment as if he made that up, a lot about having to "appear strong". A lot of knee-jerk pro- and anti-war sentiment.
Very little about principles or long-term consequences.
Fine, cut it any way you want to. It still doesn't add up to a no-brainer implied promise to smash anyone who uses chemical weapons.
The Syria thing was just a cover up for Obama's failed domestic policies:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-big-cover-up-why-obama-really-wants-to-go-to-war-in-syria/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons
QuoteTHE BIG COVER UP – WHY OBAMA REALLY WANTS TO GO TO WAR IN SYRIA
Let's take an honest look at what Obama is doing to black Americans and his own most loyal supporters. It is, in a word...unimaginable.
It all starts with Syria. Why Syria? Why now? Until Russia interceded, going to war in Syria seemed the most important thing in the world to Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry. They seemed DESPERATE to go to war, at any costs.
But why? Syria has nothing to do with us. They are not threatening us. Their own war is a civil war with no "good guys." How does America benefit from a war with Syria? Why did Obama suddenly decide a "red line" has been crossed, when there are "red lines" all over the world- including the killing of Christians and the burning of 71 Christian churches in Egypt. Why is it so important to risk American lives to defend the Syrian rebels- who are partners with Al Qaeda, America's sworn enemy? We didn't go to war to avenge the murder of our own citizens at Benghazi, so why would we go to war to avenge Al Qaeda deaths in Syria? None of this makes any sense at all.
Until you realize it's a massive cover-up. Obama's WMD- Weapon of Mass Distraction. Obama is desperate to cover-up the facts about his dying economy and the damage he's done to his own most loyal voters. Obama has destroyed the lives of the very people who consider him "the American Idol."How bad is Obama's economy? Forget the 7.3 percent unemployment rate that is reported by the government. That's pure fraud and propaganda. That figure goes down only because hundreds of thousands of Americans drop out of the workforce. In other words, if you stop looking for work, and go on food stamps and welfare, Obama says the unemployment number just got better!
The only truth about unemployment is found in the Labor Force Participation Rate of 63 percent. That's the lowest in four decades. For men it's the lowest since record-keeping began in the 1940's. What this means is 37 percent of the able-bodied, working age adults in America are not only not working, they've given up looking for work.
Even worse, a unimaginable percentage of those who are employed have only part-time jobs. Seventy-seven percent of the new jobs created since January 1st are part-time jobs. That's not good folks. Studies show 1-in-4 part-time workers live in poverty, while only 1-in-20 full-time workers live in poverty. So millions of Americans under Obama who show up as "employed" are merely working their way towards poverty. And millions of others who have full-time jobs are working at McDonalds, or working as waiters, or bartenders, or janitors. Those are the only jobs left under Obama. The middle class is being slaughtered.
Here are the two most ironic points about this slow-motion train wreck called the Obama economy:
Obamacare is the number one culprit destroying real jobs. Business owners are done. No smart business owner in all of America will lift a finger to create a full-time, high-paying job with benefits. It just makes no economic sense anymore. So Obama's signature achievement has not only created a part-time economy, but all those people in part-time jobs don't have health insurance. This should be a Saturday Night Live skit. The man has created nationalized health care so that everyone loses their jobs and no one has health care. Insanity. Unless your goal is to create an entire nation of Americans living in poverty, dependent on government welfare.
Secondly, here's the really sad, tragic, and ironic fact of the Obama economy. Obama hurts the ones he loves. Obama's policies are destroying the very people who elected and believed in him. It's almost as if Obama is out to destroy his own voters. Let's take a look at who is suffering the most from this Obama Great Depression.
Obama won the 2012 election with a razor thin 51 percent of the vote. His biggest supporters were blacks (93 percent voted for Obama), Hispanics (71 percent), single women (67 percent), young people (60 percent), and those without a high school diploma (64 percent). This is the loyal foundation of Barack Hussein Obama. This is who made him President, without a single qualification, except being a community organizer.
Now let's look at how Obama repays his loyal fans. New research out just last week proves that since 2009 income for black heads of households dropped by 10.9 percent. For Hispanic heads of households it dropped by 4.5 percent. For single women head of households it dropped by 7 percent. For young people (under age 25) it dropped by 9.6 percent. For those with a high school diploma or less, income dropped by 8 percent.
In dollar terms the numbers are even worse. Female incomes are down by $2,300 per year under Obama; black incomes are down over $4,000 per year; Hispanic incomes are down by $2,000 per year.
How about actual unemployment figures for Obama's fans? We see the same results. Reported unemployment (a bogus figure) is 7.3 percent. But among blacks (who voted 93 percent for Obama) it is an unimaginable 13.3 percent. Among Hispanics it's 9.4 percent. Among black youth it's 20.9 percent. Among teens it's 23.7 percent.
The black middle class is being destroyed. Black homeownership has slipped to the lowest level in decades.
But perhaps the worst statistic of all is the unemployment plus under-employment rate for college graduates under age 25: 18.3 percent. That means new college graduates (also big supporters of Obama) not only can't find a decent full-time job in the Obama economy, at the same time they are saddled with the highest student debt in history. That could be why we have the highest student loan default rates in history.
So what does a President, who couldn't find a job if it hit him in the head, do to keep the masses of his own voters from revolting and rioting in the streets? Go to war.
Create a distraction. Make people look away from the scene of the tragedy. Create a "situation" that induces patriotism. Make the masses rally around the President. And if that "situation" happens to help unemployment by sending unemployed young people and minorities off to war, BINGO- you've just hit the lottery!
That is the answer to the questions "Why Syria? Why now? How does this benefit America?" Obama's war is a desperate attempt to keep his own most loyal supporters from noticing that his policies have ruined their lives and set their economic progress back decades. His policies have sent black Americans in particular hurtling back to the days of poverty and racial inequality.
Obama is desperate to keep his own voters from noticing he is the worst thing to happen to them in their lifetimes. His socialist policies don't solve poverty, they cause poverty. And it's no surprise. Socialism, income redistribution, big taxes, big spending, big unions, and big government have caused poverty in every nation they've ever been tried.
Obama, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez. Same people. Same policies, Same results.
They always hurt the masses. They always victimize their own voters. They always hurt the ones they claim to love. A sick, dysfunctional death spiral.
History will not look kindly on Barack Hussein Obama. Trust me, this death spiral has only just begun.
Reference to Benghazi? Check! Plight of Christians in Muslim countries? Check! Comparisons to Mao and Stalin? Check!
QuoteSo what does a President, who couldn't find a job if it hit him in the head, do to keep the masses of his own voters from revolting and rioting in the streets? Go to war.
Create a distraction. Make people look away from the scene of the tragedy. Create a "situation" that induces patriotism. Make the masses rally around the President. And if that "situation" happens to help unemployment by sending unemployed young people and minorities off to war, BINGO- you've just hit the lottery!
Boy, he's so on point with that, you'd think it's been done before. :lol:
Relax.
Rewind 8 years:
"The Iraq thing was just a cover up for Bush's failed domestic policies."
Obama is the Democratic version of Bush.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 07:11:52 PM
They can renege, they can welch, they can waffle, they can weasel, but presumably those acts will have consequences.
What consequences would those be?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 10:32:15 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2013, 07:11:52 PM
They can renege, they can welch, they can waffle, they can weasel, but presumably those acts will have consequences.
What consequences would those be?
Depends on whether or not we draw a "red line" or not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 10:32:15 AM
What consequences would those be?
Remains to be seen. My prediction is they will be more than the nothing you and the other naysayers are expecting.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 11:53:43 AM
So back to Square 1.
Yes. You and the others seem to view that as a loss. I don't see how it is. It's not as if we're going to decomission 14 CVs and our entire B2 fleet 3 months from now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 11:53:43 AM
So back to Square 1.
Yes. You and the others seem to view that as a loss.
No, I just don't view it as a gain. And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
No, I just don't view it as a gain. And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.
Then we agree. On the present trajectory,
the worst case scenario is status quo ante.
Now take it up with the people who are characterizing the move as a geopolitical disaster for the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
No, I just don't view it as a gain. And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.
Then we agree. On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.
The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be. As a result of the President's blundering.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be. As a result of the President's blundering.
No disagreement with this statement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
No, I just don't view it as a gain. And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.
Then we agree. On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.
The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be. As a result of the President's blundering.
Indeed, but there are worse situations to be at the moment, like yet another war/entanglement in the middle east with unclear goals.
So the President's 'blundering', may have saved you from a rash response. Of course in retrospect it might be seen as blundering of the worst kind or alternative a wise pause to take stock of the situation ?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
No, I just don't view it as a gain. And the option exists only because Putin elected (for his own reasons) to throw the WH a lifeline.
Then we agree. On the present trajectory, the worst case scenario is status quo ante.
The criticism is that the status quo ante is a crappy place to be. As a result of the President's blundering.
Indeed. The status quo is that Syria used gas on their civilians after the US President said that would be intolerable, and no repercussion will come of it, and they (and others) now know that doing so in the future is not likely to draw any kind of a response and a basic pillar of western non-proliferation policy is now gone.
Other than that, this is a pretty good outcome.
Oh - and lets not forget that Putin made Obama look like his bitch and it appears that the US has to clear foreign policy initiatives with Russia now.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2013, 02:21:12 PM
Indeed, but there are worse situations to be at the moment, like yet another war/entanglement in the middle east with unclear goals.
So the President's 'blundering', may have saved you from a rash response. Of course in retrospect it might be seen as blundering of the worst kind or alternative a wise pause to take stock of the situation ?
Put aside the issue of what is the best policy in the bigger scheme - interventionist or staying out. What the President did was not an effective or sensible way of pursuing either of those policies.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2F20130914_WWD000.jpg&hash=0aecf9ac4372e735c7b0962d55a22e8906f4092c)
http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21586292-kals-cartoon
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 02:31:30 PM
Indeed. The status quo is that ... they (and others) now know that doing so in the future is not likely to draw any kind of a response and a basic pillar of western non-proliferation policy is now gone.
Wow...At that very least, I don't think that Syria knows that in the future chemical weapons against civilians is unlikely to draw any kind of response. I certainly don't know that.
That cartoon makes no sense. US has not signed off on UNSC veto.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 03:12:58 PM
That cartoon makes no sense. US has not signed off on UNSC veto.
I certainly don't get this idea that US-Russian interests are a zero sum game, if Obama loses face then the Russians must have gained and vis versa.
Sometimes, just occasionally US and Russians will in part or largely coincide. :gasp:
I'd suggest that with Syria, both countries benefit from the conflict being as contained as possible, certainly within it's borders.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2013, 03:19:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2013, 03:12:58 PM
That cartoon makes no sense. US has not signed off on UNSC veto.
I certainly don't get this idea that US-Russian interests are a zero sum game, if Obama loses face then the Russians must have gained and vis versa.
Sometimes, just occasionally US and Russians will in part or largely coincide. :gasp:
I'd suggest that with Syria, both countries benefit from the conflict being as contained as possible, certainly within it's borders.
Part of the problem is that Putin (and Assad) are playning a zero sum game. Obama is trying to play a win win game. Putin and Assad are not looking for long term solutions to resolve substantive issues and differences between the nations to enable a movement to closer more productive relations, they are looking to maintain their personal prestige to re-enforce their political positions without provoking an actual detrimental response which would either demonstrate their weakness or force a humiliating surrender.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2013, 03:19:10 PM
I certainly don't get this idea that US-Russian interests are a zero sum game, if Obama loses face then the Russians must have gained and vis versa.
Sometimes, just occasionally US and Russians will in part or largely coincide. :gasp:
I'd suggest that with Syria, both countries benefit from the conflict being as contained as possible, certainly within it's borders.
Disagree. Russia has till now made no overt moves to restrain Assad.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2013, 03:24:44 PM
Part of the problem is that Putin (and Assad) are playning a zero sum game. Obama is trying to play a win win game. Putin and Assad are not looking for long term solutions to resolve substantive issues and differences between the nations to enable a movement to closer more productive relations, they are looking to maintain their personal prestige to re-enforce their political positions without provoking an actual detrimental response which would either demonstrate their weakness or force a humiliating surrender.
Agree, except the part about Obama's win-win. Enforcing a ban on chemical weapons is not a win win.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 02:31:30 PMOh - and lets not forget that Putin made Obama look like his bitch and it appears that the US has to clear foreign policy initiatives with Russia now.
Whoa, I'd just say that Obama accidently made Putin look statesmanlike and that Putin is playing Obama like a fiddle. :homestar:
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1173790_4732993542346_2028359353_n.jpg)
;)
Obama is a bit Urkelish :mellow:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 13, 2013, 03:12:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 02:31:30 PM
Indeed. The status quo is that ... they (and others) now know that doing so in the future is not likely to draw any kind of a response and a basic pillar of western non-proliferation policy is now gone.
Wow...At that very least, I don't think that Syria knows that in the future chemical weapons against civilians is unlikely to draw any kind of response. I certainly don't know that.
What other conclusion can you draw?
We stated in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerate.
Assad used chemical weapons.
We state that we will respond militarily, then back down. And say...what instead? "Yeah, once was ok, but twice, now THAT will certainly make us respond!"
There are no certainties, but that just doesn't make any sense. If using them once is not reason for the West to get involved, how is using them twice a reason?
How can anyone who is currently arguing that the West should not take action against Assad right now possibly argue that they should do so if he gasses some more people? I can think of no rational argument against taking action now (and there certainly are plenty of such arguments, I am very willing to admit) that would change after a second or third or fourth use, or a first use by someone else. Will the rebels become more palatable if some more of them are gassed? Will the chances of some kind of utopian peaceful outcome from intervention go up?
Of course not. If the reason not to act now are not sufficient to overcome the negatives and the uncertainty of action, then they will be even more so after he gasses some more people. The fundamental and primary reason to act is to demonstrate that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated by the international community. That ship has sailed.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
What other conclusion can you draw?
We stated in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerate.
Assad used chemical weapons.
We state that we will respond militarily, then back down. And say...what instead? "Yeah, once was ok, but twice, now THAT will certainly make us respond!"
There are no certainties, but that just doesn't make any sense. If using them once is not reason for the West to get involved, how is using them twice a reason?
How can anyone who is currently arguing that the West should not take action against Assad right now possibly argue that they should do so if he gasses some more people? I can think of no rational argument against taking action now (and there certainly are plenty of such arguments, I am very willing to admit) that would change after a second or third or fourth use, or a first use by someone else. Will the rebels become more palatable if some more of them are gassed? Will the chances of some kind of utopian peaceful outcome from intervention go up?
Of course not. If the reason not to act now are not sufficient to overcome the negatives and the uncertainty of action, then they will be even more so after he gasses some more people. The fundamental and primary reason to act is to demonstrate that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated by the international community. That ship has sailed.
I have reached the opposite conclusion. The limited use of chemical weapons that killed a small number of people (relative to the rest of the conflict) brought the US to the brink of responding, and the president is inclined to action already. This is when there are still some questions out regarding the culpability of Assad for the attack.
Additional attacks would further establish the culpability of Assad, and increase the death toll in a way that would galvanize parts of world opinion. It would also increasingly look like Obama was ineffective if he didn't act, with nightly TV reports showing chemical attacks that Obama said crossed his red line.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
We stated in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerate.
Why does the president get held to such a standard of consistency when it comes to bombing people?
As a general rule, there are a lot of benefits to only saying things that you mean, and following through on commitments. But the reality is, a lot of what politicians say isn't meant and isn't followed through on.
Quote
The fundamental and primary reason to act is to demonstrate that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated by the international community. That ship has sailed.
First, the international community has extensively responded to what is happening in Syria. There are significant sanctions in place, and Assad is internationally isolated. My hunch is he ends up in front of a criminal court for crimes against humanity, if he is not killed first. I don't think many leaders are looking at Assad right now as a person to emulate.
Second, that ship was never in port to begin with. Aside from the previous uses of chemical weapons that haven't had a military response, it isn't as though we had a policy to attack anyone that used them. We aren't going to attack Russia if they use chemical weapons the next time they intervene in one of the former soviet republics. We aren't going to attack North Korea if they launch chemical weapons against its own people (if they haven't already). I'm guessing we wouldn't intervene in Africa if say Zimbabwe launched an attack similar to Assad's.
The reasons an attack on Syria is on the table is because they are militarily weak, diplomatically isolated, and conveniently located in a part of the world we keep our aircraft carriers.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
We state that we will respond militarily, then back down. And say...what instead? "Yeah, once was ok, but twice, now THAT will certainly make us respond!"
I missed this part.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
How can anyone who is currently arguing that the West should not take action against Assad right now possibly argue that they should do so if he gasses some more people? I can think of no rational argument against taking action now (and there certainly are plenty of such arguments, I am very willing to admit) that would change after a second or third or fourth use, or a first use by someone else.
It would change if he used gas outside of Syria's borders, say on a refugee camp in Turkey.
Quote from: Legbiter on September 13, 2013, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2013, 02:31:30 PMOh - and lets not forget that Putin made Obama look like his bitch and it appears that the US has to clear foreign policy initiatives with Russia now.
Whoa, I'd just say that Obama accidently made Putin look statesmanlike and that Putin is playing Obama like a fiddle. :homestar:
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1173790_4732993542346_2028359353_n.jpg)
;)
That is proof that Hussein has the bigger dick - he doesn't feel the need to compensate
Where's the dot.pl tag for? Poland?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2013, 02:40:36 PM
I have reached the opposite conclusion. The limited use of chemical weapons that killed a small number of people (relative to the rest of the conflict) brought the US to the brink of responding, and the president is inclined to action already. This is when there are still some questions out regarding the culpability of Assad for the attack.
Additional attacks would further establish the culpability of Assad, and increase the death toll in a way that would galvanize parts of world opinion. It would also increasingly look like Obama was ineffective if he didn't act, with nightly TV reports showing chemical attacks that Obama said crossed his red line.
1400 is small?
It took 2 years for 100,000 to be killed. 1400 casualties is a full percent of that inflicted in 5 minutes.
According to today's
Foreign Policy daily email bulletin:
QuoteAs the world awaits the U.N. report today on chemical weapons use in Syria, Iran is "dialing up" its presence there. The United Nations is expected to release its report today on Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons in the attack outside Damascus last month. The U.N. reported yesterday that the report had been turned over to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; there will be a series of meetings there this morning and the media will be briefed a bit before 1 p.m. EST. No question the report will stir the pot at Secretary of State John Kerry pushes forward on a diplomatic agreement to get Syria's Bashar al-Assad to agree to dismantle his chemical weapons stockpile.
At the same time, Shiite influence inside Syria is arriving by the busload. The WSJ's Farnaz Fassihi, Jay Solomon and Sam Dagher: "At a base near Tehran, Iranian forces are training Shiite militiamen from across the Arab world to do battle in Syria-showing the widening role of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria's bloody war. The busloads of Shiite militiamen from Iraq, Syria and other Arab states have been arriving at the Iranian base in recent weeks, under cover of darkness, for instruction in urban warfare and the teachings of Iran's clerics, according to Iranian military figures and residents in the area. The fighters' mission: Fortify the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Sunni rebels, the U.S. and Israel. Iran's widening role in Syria has helped Mr. Assad climb back from near-defeat in less than a year. The role of Iran's training camp for Shiite fighters hasn't previously been disclosed."
And: "The fighters 'are told that the war in Syria is akin to [an] epic battle for Shiite Islam, and if they die they will be martyrs of the highest rank,' says an Iranian military officer briefed on the training camp, which is 15 miles outside Tehran and called Amir Al-Momenin, or Commander of the Faithful."
Yay.
And the same thing is happening in the Sunni world. Sunni crazies and Shiite crazies killing each other = win for us.
Quote from: derspiess on September 16, 2013, 09:47:36 AM
And the same thing is happening in the Sunni world. Sunni crazies and Shiite crazies killing each other = win for us.
Except when we provide intel to one side to kill the other with battlefield chemical weapons. Then it's just
wrong.
We shouldn't have our fingerprints on it.
A Turkish jet has shot down a Syrian helicopter on the border.
edit:
video shows it, a Mil-17, falling to the ground on Syrian territory, within 1km of the border. Rebels are shown combing the wreckage and them gathering in the parachute of the one crew member who escaped the crash, but it's not clear if he made it to the ground alive or survived any 'handling'.
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2013, 05:56:48 PM
That is proof that Hussein has the bigger dick - he doesn't feel the need to compensate
Okay, DG.
12 Days
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
According to today's Foreign Policy daily email bulletin:
.....
Yay.
This got me thinking, is one reason to prefer Shia soldiers,militiamen over Sunni soldiers/militia/rebels it that they might not go around shouting Allan-Ackman everytime someone pulls the trigger on a RPG ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
You are going to have to wait till October and till I figure out how stamps work.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
This is why I bet in quatloos.
What do you mean "wiser"? :yeahright:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 06:09:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
You are going to have to wait till October and till I figure out how stamps work.
Surely
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 06:10:34 PM
What do you mean "wiser"? :yeahright:
As in wiser than you all. *shrugs*
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
This is Raz' first money bet you nebbish. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2013, 07:09:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
This is Raz' first money bet you nebbish. :lol:
Which proves my point, he's wiser than you or DG. :P
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2013, 07:09:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
This is Raz' first money bet you nebbish. :lol:
Which proves my point, he's wiser than you or DG. :P
:huh: We can't both be unwise. One of us has to be making a good bet.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 07:13:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2013, 07:09:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
This is Raz' first money bet you nebbish. :lol:
Which proves my point, he's wiser than you or DG. :P
:huh: We can't both be unwise. One of us has to be making a good bet.
Do you both tend to bet against each other ?
I thought Yi offers bets more widely ?
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:18:34 PM
Do you both tend to bet against each other ?
I thought Yi offers bets more widely ?
I'm exclusive with Yi when it comes to my gambling needs.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
I've been collecting Languish members addresses.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
I've been collecting Languish members addresses.
Careful now, Yi will be complaining....
about us not cropping our quotes. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
I've been collecting Languish members addresses.
Careful now, Yi will be complaining....
about us not cropping our quotes. :cool:
He doesnt even follow it.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
I've been collecting Languish members addresses.
Careful now, Yi will be complaining....
about us not cropping our quotes. :cool:
He doesnt even follow it.
I'm sceptical about that, I think when they get long enough, he and most rational people will snap and also subsequently bare the lesson in mind ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
I've been collecting Languish members addresses.
Careful now, Yi will be complaining....
about us not cropping our quotes. :cool:
He doesnt even follow it.
I'm sceptical about that, I think when they get long enough, he and most rational people will snap and also subsequently bare the lesson in mind ? :unsure:
You might have a point.
It's like an infinity quote.
I will send the money, though I wonder if it'll actually get there. The last time I sent a letter it was it was to Santa Claus, and I don't think he got it either.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 08:54:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 18, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
12 Days
Is that a film or something like a prediction for the bombing to start. Help out and old, proto-senile Brit who struggles with some of the referencing on this forum at times. :bowler:
12 days left till my $20.00
Gotcha, you made a bet wit Yi or DG on the lack of military response from the administration?
Raz
:thumbsup:
Surprised Raz went for it as he's usually wiser on bets than Yi or DG.
I've been collecting Languish members addresses.
Careful now, Yi will be complaining....
about us not cropping our quotes. :cool:
He doesnt even follow it.
I'm sceptical about that, I think when they get long enough, he and most rational people will snap and also subsequently bare the lesson in mind ? :unsure:
You might have a point.
:D
At this link is John McCain's response to Putin who recently had an editorial in NY Times. This is hosted on Pravda.ru website, different from and not to be confused with Pravda Newspaper which is still a mouthpiece for the Russian government. Pravda newspaper declined to print this. If you go to the link it has more about the two Pravda sites.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/mccain-publishes-opinion-piece-in-pravda-but-not-the-one-he-wanted/?hpt=hp_t2
Quote from: KRonn on September 19, 2013, 10:01:28 AM
At this link is John McCain's response to Putin who recently had an editorial in NY Times. This is hosted on Pravda.ru website, different from and not to be confused with Pravda Newspaper which is still a mouthpiece for the Russian government. Pravda newspaper declined to print this. If you go to the link it has more about the two Pravda sites.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/mccain-publishes-opinion-piece-in-pravda-but-not-the-one-he-wanted/?hpt=hp_t2
Wow, this really highlights just how much prestige Obama has lost to the Russians. Putin is now being published by the New York Times, while our leaders are struggling to get into Pravda.
Last week Putin put an editorial in the NY Times basically trashing on the US and pissing off many Congressmembers, Dems and Repubs. So no surprise that some are responding in kind. It was pretty big news so I figured people here would see the connection.
Al-Qaeda 'safe haven' on NATO's border:
QuoteISIS seizure of Syria's Azaz exposes rebel rifts
By Paul Wood
BBC News, on Turkey's border with Syria
The Free Syrian Army is driven out of a town on the Turkish border. Several of their men are killed, perhaps as many as 100 captured. Inside the town, there are arrests of opposition activists and citizen-journalists. Members of the Sharia court are detained.
It sounds like a description of a successful offensive by the regime. But the Free Syrian Army lost the town of Azaz to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the most hardline group linked to al-Qaeda on the rebel side. As a measure of the grip the jihadis have in Azaz, one eyewitness inside the town said no-one was smoking on the streets - tobacco is forbidden according to strict Islamist doctrine.
Rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24160189 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24160189)
I've never heard of moon worshippers not being allowed to smoke before.
I've heard of some super-extreme ones prohibiting it.
Incidentally didn't NATO invoke some uniting for collective defence resolution thingy to go after these AQ bods a while back ?
Perhapsibly. Have the Turks requested any help in regards to that?
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
Perhapsibly. Have the Turks requested any help in regards to that?
Wasn't it in defence of America ?
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
Perhapsibly. Have the Turks requested any help in regards to that?
There was that thing when we deployed some Patriot batteries to Turkey.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2013, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
Perhapsibly. Have the Turks requested any help in regards to that?
There was that thing when we deployed some Patriot batteries to Turkey.
I don't think the AQ affiliates have planes or ballistic missiles, so those are aimed at the Syrian government forces.
Quote from: mongers on September 19, 2013, 07:26:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2013, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
Perhapsibly. Have the Turks requested any help in regards to that?
There was that thing when we deployed some Patriot batteries to Turkey.
I don't think the AQ affiliates have planes or ballistic missiles, so those are aimed at the Syrian government forces.
History would suggest that they can get ahold of planes when they want to.
Ow.
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2013, 07:55:52 PM
History would suggest that they can get ahold of planes when they want to.
HEY BOY WATCH THAT POST
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-cAxopwJXtcI/UMKPMHVuKGI/AAAAAAAASfk/fnm5qvl-T-g/s640/1941-1979-toshiro-mifune-slim-pickens-christopher-lee-pic-3.jpg)
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 19, 2013, 11:12:55 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 19, 2013, 10:01:28 AM
At this link is John McCain's response to Putin who recently had an editorial in NY Times. This is hosted on Pravda.ru website, different from and not to be confused with Pravda Newspaper which is still a mouthpiece for the Russian government. Pravda newspaper declined to print this. If you go to the link it has more about the two Pravda sites.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/mccain-publishes-opinion-piece-in-pravda-but-not-the-one-he-wanted/?hpt=hp_t2
Wow, this really highlights just how much prestige Obama has lost to the Russians. Putin is now being published by the New York Times, while our leaders are struggling to get into Pravda.
:huh:
Our media is generally a lot more open on who they will give a mic to.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2013, 08:56:49 AM
:huh:
Our media is generally a lot more open on who they will give a mic to.
I was joking. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2013, 08:07:11 PM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2013, 07:55:52 PM
History would suggest that they can get ahold of planes when they want to.
HEY BOY WATCH THAT POST
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-cAxopwJXtcI/UMKPMHVuKGI/AAAAAAAASfk/fnm5qvl-T-g/s640/1941-1979-toshiro-mifune-slim-pickens-christopher-lee-pic-3.jpg)
Sir, that appears to be a 6 Million Dollar Man lunch box with thermos. If so, I commend you.
It is, in fact, The Six Million Dollar Man's lunch box.
Mom made us recycle a lot of stuff back in the day, but she was always good for a new lunch box every year.
I broke a few thermos by using my lunchbox as it was intended, a weapon. :(
You guys probably already saw this, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsF3HspQY6A
Real?
I'm surprised they waited this long to do it again.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/syrian-rebels-again-charge-assad-regime-using-chlorine-gas-n86831
QuoteSyrian Rebels Again Charge Assad Regime with Using Chlorine Gas
By Robert Windrem
Syrian rebels are once again charging that government forces have attacked civilians in rebel-held territory with chlorine gas – a substance not covered by last September's international agreement, brokered by the U.S. and Russia, to remove chemical weapons from the war-torn nation.
According to the local council in Daria, near Damascus, the town was targeted Tuesday with small barrel bombs that appeared to contain chlorine gas. The council reported that ambulances were transporting the injured to field hospitals, and published a video on YouTube to back up its claim.
The council said that victims suffered suffocation and shortness of breath, but that so far the number of casualties is small, with no deaths.
Tuesday's incident was the second alleged attack in 24 hours. On Monday, opposition groups charged that barrel bombs loaded with chlorine were dropped from helicopters on the town of Telminnes in the central province of Hama.
Earlier this month, there were alleged chlorine attacks on another rebel-held town, Kfar Zeita, and a village near the Turkish border. In each case, rebels provided journalists with videos of the alleged attack.
The use of chlorine appears to be coordinated, reports Reuters, which adds that rebel-produced videos of the Telminnes attack show that some unexploded cannisters carried the designation, "CL2," the symbol for chlorine gas. The cannisters also show the name of a Chinese manufacturer.
Chlorine has industrial uses but if used as a weapon is officially considered a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international arms agreement. However, a U.S. official said that under the agreement reached last year by the U.S., Russia and the Assad regime, Syria is not required to turn over chlorine to the U.N.'s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for neutralization.
"Chlorine can be considered a chemical weapon," said a U.S. counter-proliferation official, "but it is not covered by the tripartite agreement."
The official added that not all reports of chlorine use have been verified, and said without access to the sites, confirmation is difficult.
"Any use of any toxic material with the intent to injure or kill is something we'd be concerned about," said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki Tuesday. She said the international community is investigating what happened and the U.S. is in touch with the OPCW.
Ammar Cheikhomar contributed to this report.
Hey, what's the worry? There are agreements with Russia to help solve the Syrian chemical weapons issue! :lol: