Poll
Question:
Will the Congress approve military action against Syria?
Option 1: Both the Senate and the House
votes: 16
Option 2: The Senate, but not the House
votes: 16
Option 3: The House, but not the Senate
votes: 0
Option 4: Neither of them will approve
votes: 8
So, what do you think? I think that the only plausible options are 1 and 2, but I posted 3 and 4 for completness sake.
Please list your vote. I think it could go either way in the House, and expect a narrow margin. Hard to say at this point. So I'll just vote for the option I prefer, which is #1.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/obama_s_syria_speech_his_decision_to_seek_congressional_approval_for_his.html
Quote
Obama's Gamble
Seeking congressional approval for his Syria strike was risky and right.
By Fred Kaplan|Posted Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013, at 3:49 PM
President Obama is taking a monumental gamble with his Rose Garden statement on war with Syria, but it's a worthwhile one.
In recent days he and Secretary of State John Kerry have made a powerful case that Bashar al-Assad's regime launched the chemical weapons that killed more than 1,000 civilians in a suburb of Damascus. All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have said, in a special report, that they have "high confidence" in this assessment.
Obama has also made a strong case that a military response is the proper action—not in order to get involved in the Syrian civil war (which he has said we cannot affect with force alone) or to oust Assad from power (though that may be a side effect), but rather to enforce a long-standing global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
However, this rationale for military strikes (which I agree with) puts him in a box. The organizations charged with enforcing international law are not joining in the attack. The U.N. Security Council is "paralyzed," as Obama said in today's speech, because Russia will certainly veto any resolution to use force. In the 1999 Kosovo crisis, President Clinton, also faced with Russian recalcitrance, turned to NATO as the entity to launch a massive air campaign. Obama's aides cited Kosovo as a possible model when they floated the idea of a strike several days ago, but the British Parliament's refusal to authorize force precludes the NATO option as well. Many members of the Arab League support American action against Assad, but they are unlikely to take a formal position either.
Obama has assembled a small coalition of foreign allies who have said they'll join in an attack, including France, Australia, and—most important—Turkey. But this isn't enough. And, again, this isn't a matter of legal nicety. It's a matter of political legitimacy, which will be needed to convince Assad that there's determination behind the first few airstrikes—and to provide ballast in case the attack doesn't have much effect.
To gain some measure of legitimacy, Obama at least needs domestic support. And so, in addition to announcing that he'd decided to launch an attack on Syrian targets, he also announced that he would have Congress debate and vote on a resolution authorizing military force. The lawmakers aren't scheduled to return to Washington from vacation until Sept. 9, but it's worth the wait (though couldn't he demand they come back sooner?).
If Obama had simply announced that he was launching an attack, he would have prompted endless sniping from Congress, especially if the first few days of airstrikes had no effect. And Assad would watch the sniping with glee, concluding—rightly or wrongly—that the American attacks wouldn't last long, so he should hold firm for a few days more.
An authorization on the use of force binds Congress to Obama's actions—assuming the measure passes. It will also have the salutary effect of shifting precedents on America's use of force generally. Maybe the new standard will be that Congress does play a role in any such decision. No more lazy sniping—or hollow rooting—from the sidelines. Those who have long urged Obama to do something about Syria, and then criticized him in recent days for doing something (just because it's Obama who's doing it), will now have to step up and take a stand.
As Obama walked away from the podium, a reporter asked what he would do if Congress voted down a resolution. He said nothing, but the answer seems pretty clear. If Congress votes no, he won't launch an attack. The legislators will come to realize this, and will see that this is not a parlor game, and I think that's why they'll vote in favor.
There will be lessons noted from Iraq, and I suspect the authorization will impose limits on the duration and perhaps the scope of military action. Some will complain that these limits constrain the president, but in fact they free him. Who knows? Maybe we will learn—contrary to the experience of the past decade—that a democracy can go to war in a full and open vote without deceit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2013, 01:03:22 AM
So, what do you think? I think that the only plausible options are 1 and 2, but I posted 3 and 4 for completness sake.
I think 4 is a plausible outcome; I doubt very much that every Democrat is going to vote in favor of a foreign military adventure.
That being said I think that the Military-Industrial Complex owns enough congressmen and senators to get the bill through both houses.
I pressed the '8' button.
It will need to be a joint resolution, and while the Senate may vote yes in a close one, the House version will be entitled the "The Authorization of the Use of Force against the Syrian Arab Republic and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Federal Funding Prohibition Act", at which point the President will not accept it, and the only other avenue for a US response would be to then embark on a PSA program designed to instruct Syrians to hold their breath during chemical attacks.
It will not go through.
Big Winners: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, assorted GOP isolationist noodleheads, everybody else who hates the Black Kenyan Anti-Colonial Muslim Socialist for the sake of hating the Black Kenyan Anti-Colonial Muslim Socialist, Assad, Hezbollah, goofball Sunni AQ-types, Tehran.
Big Losers: Obama, NATO, the UN, the Chemical Weapons Convention, Neo-Liberal Institutional IR Theory, implied powers of the POTUS regarding US Foreign Policy and as C-in-C, Healthcare.
Bonne chance, France! :frog:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m69a1g5C0u1rvzw0uo1_500.gif&hash=0eb71d1b9e9fa88fc75c2d535ee14f66164ba2ee)
Quote from: Savonarola on September 02, 2013, 06:44:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2013, 01:03:22 AM
So, what do you think? I think that the only plausible options are 1 and 2, but I posted 3 and 4 for completness sake.
I think 4 is a plausible outcome; I doubt very much that every Democrat is going to vote in favor of a foreign military adventure.
That being said I think that the Military-Industrial Complex owns enough congressmen and senators to get the bill through both houses.
A lot of influential GOP senators are interventionists.
You can bet Anger's Quatloo safe on it, the Senate will pass it, guaranteed.
Seriously, Senate will do it, House is so obstructionist that even the lobbyists won't be able to clear out that logjam.
Languish seems rather split on the issue. I'm surprised that so many think the Senate won't vote for it. :hmm:
Senate will agree & vote yes.
The congress won't vote. They couldn't agree on a vote to give themselves raises, they won't on this.
The Senate may vote on it and even pass it, but the House will table it and instead vote to repeal Obamacare for the 41st time. And then, for the 42nd time.
Is it really neccessary to repeat yourself? We got it the first time.
I agree with the Israelis, if we do nothing it bodes very poorly for Iranian behavior in the future.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/01/syria_celebrates_obama_s_retreat_israel_worries_of_iran_implications.html
Quote
As Syria Celebrates Obama's "Retreat," Israel Worries of Iran Implications
By Daniel Politi
Posted Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013, at 10:59 AM
A Syrian state-run newspaper did not mince words Sunday, writing in a front-page editorial that President Obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for a military strike amounted to a "retreat" by the United States. "Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," the al-Thawra newspaper said, according to Reuters. The newspaper also noted that Obama's apparent reluctance to launch a strike comes from his "sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies," according to the Associated Press translation.
Syria's Deputy Prime Minister Kadri Jamil was even more blunt, telling a Lebanese television network that Obama "was defeated before the war began," according to Israel's Arutz Sheva. The Syrian official added that the seeming back-and-forth from Washington "has made a mockery of the U.S. administration all over the world."
Meanwhile, in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized Israel's capability of confronting its enemies alone as many raised questions about the implications of Obama's delay on Washington's willingness to confront a threat from Iran, notes Reuters.
"Israel's citizens know well that we are prepared for any possible scenario. And Israel's citizens should also know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our power and not to test our might," Netanyahu said, without ever mentioning Syria or Iran by name.
One of his ministers was less subtle. "In Tehran they are opening bottles of champagne, and surely shifting into high gear toward nuclear weaponization," Israeli Minister of Housing and Construction Uri Ariel wrote in a post on his Facebook page, according to Bloomberg. "Anyone who believes now this president will strike Iran only on evidence that the Iranians have crossed a nuclear red line, is probably hallucinating."
In the Times of Israel Avi Issacharoff writes that it's "unavoidable" to draw a connection between Iran and Syria:
If after Assad's use of weapons of mass destruction to kill what Secretary of State John Kerry specified were 1,429 of his own people, Obama hesitates — when Assad has no real capacity to substantially harm American interests — what is he likely to do if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons? [Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran's military capability are very low, if not nonexistent.
And they're not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2013, 08:08:34 PM
Is it really neccessary to repeat yourself? We got it the first time.
Wait until the 41st.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2013, 08:08:34 PM
Is it really neccessary to repeat yourself? We got it the first time.
He only has a few lines, so give him a break.
When I start mixing them up is the time to worry. Like the House voting on 14 year old girls.
:mmm:
I think that Congress will approve. As more info comes out about setting an example to Syria or any other nation about using chemical/bio weapons, plus the info showing that the government did take the actions, Congress will become more and more likely to vote yes.
I'm still very divided on an attack though. I think attacking would have unintended negative ramifications but I'm thinking more now that letting this go by without punitive action is the worst option. Also shows Iran whether the US has the fortitude to carry out action on any "red lines" that have also been set with Iran.
I think that the Senate will approve, but the House will not. Obama will move in, anyway.
From my perspective, we have little choice but to at least lob a few volleys at Syria. The question is: what will be the ramifications with only France to back us? I could see Putin feeling a need to put on his own show under the circumstances.
I'm not a fan of the US acting unilaterally or with only one other or a few other nations joining in. I'm very surprised and annoyed that there isn't more of an outcry on the use of these weapons by many more nations, and many more willing to act. With the banning of and the fear of using bio/chem weapons there should be a lot more resolve by nations over the use of the weapons.
Maybe we can shoot members of the House at Syria.
Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:50:58 AM
I think that the Senate will approve, but the House will not. Obama will move in, anyway.
If Obama is smart, he can and should use that scenario to beat the hell out of the "obstructionists" in the House who care more about party politics than taking a stand against the use of WMDs against women, chidlren, and civilians.
Of course, Obama has consistently shown an almost comical inability to make House Republicans pay or even take responsibility for their obstructionism, so I have no faith he will manage to do so.
Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:50:58 AM
From my perspective, we have little choice but to at least lob a few volleys at Syria. The question is: what will be the ramifications with only France to back us? I could see Putin feeling a need to put on his own show under the circumstances.
We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 10:08:59 AM
If Obama is smart, he can and should use that scenario to beat the hell out of the "obstructionists" in the House who care more about party politics than taking a stand against the use of WMDs against women, chidlren, and civilians.
Of course, Obama has consistently shown an almost comical inability to make House Republicans pay or even take responsibility for their obstructionism, so I have no faith he will manage to do so.
The public appears to be against an attack, including large numbers of Democrats. One man's obstructionism is another man's responsive representative government with some checks and balances on the executive branch.
I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 10:32:47 AM
We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?
No, we have to lob a few missiles at Syria because we said that we would if they used WMD. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 10:32:47 AM
We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?
No, we have to lob a few missiles at Syria because we said that we would if they used WMD. :mellow:
Making an ill advised statement shouldn't be a justification for war.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 11:24:27 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 10:32:47 AM
We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?
No, we have to lob a few missiles at Syria because we said that we would if they used WMD. :mellow:
Making an ill advised statement shouldn't be a justification for war.
Following through on a perfectly well advised threat is a fine justification for taking action.
Saying that said action is "war" kind of misses the point that that war is already a done deal. They've had themselves a nice little war for some time now.
Indeed, the case in particular (responding to the use of chemical
weapons means, by definition, that the response would be in most cases, a response to an already ongoing war and how it is fought, rather than starting a war.
Hyperbole is almost never useful in an argument.
The issue is not "war or no war" it is "intervene in existing war or don't".
And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 11:45:18 AM
And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?
Yeah, that is something that worries me aswell. What the hell has happened when people argue like that.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 11:44:12 AM
Following through on a perfectly well advised threat is a fine justification for taking action.
Saying that said action is "war" kind of misses the point that that war is already a done deal. They've had themselves a nice little war for some time now.
Indeed, the case in particular (responding to the use of chemical weapons means, by definition, that the response would be in most cases, a response to an already ongoing war and how it is fought, rather than starting a war.
Hyperbole is almost never useful in an argument.
The issue is not "war or no war" it is "intervene in existing war or don't".
We are discussing launching missiles at targets in Syria. That is an act of war. We will be going to war with Syria. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality.
I don't see how it is reasonable to go to war against Syria to uphold a threat made in order to "uphold international norms", when the action isn't endorsed by the UN and is against international opinion. The case for an attack here--while less ambitious and less dangerous--seems even more dubious than in Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 11:45:18 AM
And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?
There is a difference between a response and military strike.
There has been chemical weapons use in the past and it didn't result in a military attack. There have been reports that North Korea has used chemical weapons against its own people. Are we attacking them? Of course not. What if Iran was to do so? I seriously doubt we would respond with an attack.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 12:05:41 PM
We are discussing launching missiles at targets in Syria. That is an act of war. We will be going to war with Syria. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality.
I don't see how it is reasonable to go to war against Syria to uphold a threat made in order to "uphold international norms", when the action isn't endorsed by the UN and is against international opinion. The case for an attack here--while less ambitious and less dangerous--seems even more dubious than in Iraq.
The case in Iraq came down to suspicions of WMDs being developed in violation of a treaty and the refusal to allow inspectors the appropriate access. As it turns out there were no WMDs being developed and it was Saddam being an idiot in not allowing the inspectors in. In Syria there's actual evidence of WMDs being used on a widespread basis. How is that more dubious? It might have less popular support, but that doesn't make it more dubious.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 11:45:18 AM
And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?
No kidding; Just as support for terrorism, or for genocide, or for territorial aggrandizement, or any other type of behavior frowned upon by the international community. It's not like this is some sort of new thing here.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 10:38:06 AM
I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.
You know, I've sort of been wondering that myself :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 12:05:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 11:44:12 AM
Following through on a perfectly well advised threat is a fine justification for taking action.
Saying that said action is "war" kind of misses the point that that war is already a done deal. They've had themselves a nice little war for some time now.
Indeed, the case in particular (responding to the use of chemical weapons means, by definition, that the response would be in most cases, a response to an already ongoing war and how it is fought, rather than starting a war.
Hyperbole is almost never useful in an argument.
The issue is not "war or no war" it is "intervene in existing war or don't".
We are discussing launching missiles at targets in Syria. That is an act of war. We will be going to war with Syria. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality.
No, that is hyperbole. hitting targets in Syria is an act of war, but that doesn't mean we are going to war or starting a war. That is just being intentionally vague on the use of terms in order to evoke an emotional response, and make something sound as bad as possible.
Quote
I don't see how it is reasonable to go to war against Syria to uphold a threat made in order to "uphold international norms", when the action isn't endorsed by the UN and is against international opinion. The case for an attack here--while less ambitious and less dangerous--seems even more dubious than in Iraq.
It isn't endorsed by the UN because the UN has a idiotic setup for endorsing actions where Russia will simply veto said action regardless of its justification.
And princicples like "It is not ok to use WMDs" are not and should not be subject to "international review". Nor is any such claim that it is "against international opinion" valid in any case. How do you know that? How do you measure it?
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
Quote from: frunk on September 03, 2013, 12:13:05 PM
The case in Iraq came down to suspicions of WMDs being developed in violation of a treaty and the refusal to allow inspectors the appropriate access. As it turns out there were no WMDs being developed and it was Saddam being an idiot in not allowing the inspectors in. In Syria there's actual evidence of WMDs being used on a widespread basis. How is that more dubious? It might have less popular support, but that doesn't make it more dubious.
Because allowing inspectors appropriate access was a condition of the peace treaty, to which the US was a party.
In Syria, the US has no interests. The UN Security Council was set up for this type of situation, and is not inclined to act. Also, there is probably less international support for attacking Syria than there was Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 11:45:18 AM
And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?
There is a difference between a response and military strike.
So you are saying the west should respond, just not militarily? So the stricture against the use of WMDs is one of really just a suggestions, since of course we know that the only regimes that would countenance such use are those for whom threats of "Don't do it or we will say don't do it again" are completely useless?
There is nothing ill advised about the position that has been around for many decades, that the use of WMDs pretty much automatically raises whatever conflict you use them in from a local affair to one with international implications.
Arguing that we should have such a principle but should not be willing to enforce it in any meaningful way is not just foolish, it is immoral.
Quote
There has been chemical weapons use in the past and it didn't result in a military attack.
Indeed. In the most well known case, Iraq, it seems pretty obvious in hindsight that the failure to react was a critical error, that in the long run resulted in vastly greater death, cost, and destruction for nearly everyone involved or not involved.
Quote
There have been reports that North Korea has used chemical weapons against its own people. Are we attacking them? Of course not.
Yeah, the fact that the result of said attack would very possibly be the death of some ten million people living in Seoul does not really argue for continuing to allow others to be able to hold the lives of civilians hostage to their crazy.
This is such a common fallacy it is rather boring. If we cannot stop every criminal, then we should never stop ANY criminal?
Quote
What if Iran was to do so? I seriously doubt we would respond with an attack.
I imagine that would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it?
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.
Thanks for you valued opinion.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
No, that is hyperbole. hitting targets in Syria is an act of war, but that doesn't mean we are going to war or starting a war. That is just being intentionally vague on the use of terms in order to evoke an emotional response, and make something sound as bad as possible.
It isn't hyperbole to state reality. Launching missiles into Syria puts us into a state of war with the Syrian government. We would consider ourselves to be at war with someone who did a similar attack to the US government.
I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues, of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.
Thanks for you valued opinion.
Your welcome. Unlike you, I don't think a wall of text ignoring people's points are very useful. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
No, that is hyperbole. hitting targets in Syria is an act of war, but that doesn't mean we are going to war or starting a war. That is just being intentionally vague on the use of terms in order to evoke an emotional response, and make something sound as bad as possible.
It isn't hyperbole to state reality. Launching missiles into Syria puts us into a state of war with the Syrian government. We would consider ourselves to be at war with someone who did a similar attack to the US government.
We've launched missiles in many places that did not result in a state of war.
Not that I really care one way or the other, since the semantics of it has no bearing on the wisdom of the policy proposal.
If it results in a state of war, in your opinion, so what? It's not like shooting missiles at someone is a good idea if it doesn't, and a bad idea if it does. It is a good or bad idea based on whether or not shooting missiles at people is a good or bad idea under the circumstances, not on whether or not it will result in a "state of war".
As far was what WE would do...who cares? That isn't relelvant, Syria is not the USA, and their ability to respond to an act of violence taken against them by other actors is not comparable to our ability to do the same, and more importantly, WE don't tend to use WMDs against civilians.
Giant humongous obvious exception notwithstanding.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.
Thanks for you valued opinion.
Your welcome. Unlike you, I don't think a wall of text ignoring people's points are very useful. :)
Your last two posts suggest otherwise.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:47:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.
Thanks for you valued opinion.
Your welcome. Unlike you, I don't think a wall of text ignoring people's points are very useful. :)
Your last two posts suggest otherwise.
:hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:33:47 PM
It isn't endorsed by the UN because the UN has a idiotic setup for endorsing actions where Russia will simply veto said action regardless of its justification.
And princicples like "It is not ok to use WMDs" are not and should not be subject to "international review". Nor is any such claim that it is "against international opinion" valid in any case. How do you know that? How do you measure it?
Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.
The UN was set up in the way it was because it wanted to make sure that only the most egregious matters involving a broad consensus would result in military action. I tend to think that while there are flaws in the structure, that is reasonable.
Russia isn't the sole block here anyway. China is also a block. I don't know the breakdown of European countries for and against action, but my understanding is that European public opinion is generally against military action. In the UK it is decisively against action, and even in France it is divided (I've read less than 50% support in places) though the government is for action.
The body for assessing opinion is the UN. We know that it won't approve any action. You want to know how to measure world opinion? In this case it isn't so hard. List your major countries/regions and ask yourself what you think their opinion is:
China
Latin America
Germany
Russia
the Arabic World
Spain
Italy
etc.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:46:06 PM
No, that iWe've launched missiles in many places that did not result in a state of war.
Not that I really care one way or the other, since the semantics of it has no bearing on the wisdom of the policy proposal.
If it results in a state of war, in your opinion, so what? It's not like shooting missiles at someone is a good idea if it doesn't, and a bad idea if it does. It is a good or bad idea based on whether or not shooting missiles at people is a good or bad idea under the circumstances, not on whether or not it will result in a "state of war".
As far was what WE would do...who cares? That isn't relelvant, Syria is not the USA, and their ability to respond to an act of violence taken against them by other actors is not comparable to our ability to do the same, and more importantly, WE don't tend to use WMDs against civilians.
Giant humongous obvious exception notwithstanding.
I'm going to summarize this as: "it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."
China - Do not know. Don't really care either.
Latin America - Do not know. Neither do you.
Germany - Certianly against, but then, they are against everything.
Russia - Against, but for reasons that make me more inclined to support rather than less.
Arabic World - Mixed, I imagine.
Spain - Don't know
Italy - Don't know
The point is we don't know, we just assume we know.
The other point is...so what? If various places propaganda had successfully convinced 50.1% of the world population that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy, should England have refused to go to war over Poland?
Principles are not and should not be subject to the vagaries of current popular opinion, which is largely informed by ignorance and factors that often have nothing to do with the principles involved. Russia is a fine example - they are not against because they think using Sarin on people is fine, they are against for completely political reasons and because it is in their best interests (they think) to thwart whatever the west wants to do.
You might as well argue that we should have let North Korea overrun South Korea, since the USSR was in favor of it!
The UN is setup in the way it is largely for the reasons you state. But that setup results in clear cases where the particulars of a situation simply make it impossible for the UN to address it. If Russia dropped a nuke on the Ukraine tomorrow, surely they would veto any proposed response - are you arguing that the rest of the world should then throw up their hands and say "Gosh, Russia says we should let them nuke their neighbors! And they are on the Security Council! Oh well!"
I am all for using the UN for those circumstances where the situation is such that consensus can be reached.
I reject totally the idea that nobody can do anything without the UNSC blessing it first.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:46:06 PM
No, that iWe've launched missiles in many places that did not result in a state of war.
Not that I really care one way or the other, since the semantics of it has no bearing on the wisdom of the policy proposal.
If it results in a state of war, in your opinion, so what? It's not like shooting missiles at someone is a good idea if it doesn't, and a bad idea if it does. It is a good or bad idea based on whether or not shooting missiles at people is a good or bad idea under the circumstances, not on whether or not it will result in a "state of war".
As far was what WE would do...who cares? That isn't relelvant, Syria is not the USA, and their ability to respond to an act of violence taken against them by other actors is not comparable to our ability to do the same, and more importantly, WE don't tend to use WMDs against civilians.
Giant humongous obvious exception notwithstanding.
I'm going to summarize this as: "it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."
*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.
I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:00:53 PM
*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.
I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.
That is the critical difference in this instance, though, correct?
If Syria had the means of fighting back, say a legitimate chance of sinking an aircraft carrier and ICBMs capable of comparable attacks on US targets, you would consider the attack to establish a state of war.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:59:41 PM
China - Do not know. Don't really care either.
Latin America - Do not know. Neither do you.
Germany - Certianly against, but then, they are against everything.
Russia - Against, but for reasons that make me more inclined to support rather than less.
Arabic World - Mixed, I imagine.
Spain - Don't know
Italy - Don't know
The point is we don't know, we just assume we know.
The other point is...so what? If various places propaganda had successfully convinced 50.1% of the world population that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy, should England have refused to go to war over Poland?
Principles are not and should not be subject to the vagaries of current popular opinion, which is largely informed by ignorance and factors that often have nothing to do with the principles involved. Russia is a fine example - they are not against because they think using Sarin on people is fine, they are against for completely political reasons and because it is in their best interests (they think) to thwart whatever the west wants to do.
You might as well argue that we should have let North Korea overrun South Korea, since the USSR was in favor of it!
The UN is setup in the way it is largely for the reasons you state. But that setup results in clear cases where the particulars of a situation simply make it impossible for the UN to address it. If Russia dropped a nuke on the Ukraine tomorrow, surely they would veto any proposed response - are you arguing that the rest of the world should then throw up their hands and say "Gosh, Russia says we should let them nuke their neighbors! And they are on the Security Council! Oh well!"
I am all for using the UN for those circumstances where the situation is such that consensus can be reached.
I reject totally the idea that nobody can do anything without the UNSC blessing it first.
I'm not aware of polling in the countries/regions I mentioned but I suspect you can offer more than "don't know."
So you can't assert world opinion is behind launching an attack.
The better part of international governments, even of typically stable US allies, are not behind an attack.
The UN won't support an attack.
The US does not have critical interests at stake in the country.
If you want non proliferation to be successful, there needs to be international cooperation. The US acting as the worlds policeman is going to be counterproductive if it isn't done in a way that is unilateral.
A major problem with getting involved is it is going to create animosity and blame to the US for years to come. Just check out the Iran coup thread--over half a century later we are getting blamed for the trouble in the country. And in this particular case, for what? Does anyone think firing missiles into Syria will fix anything?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:00:53 PM
*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.
I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.
That is the critical difference in this instance, though, correct?
If Syria had the means of fighting back, say a legitimate chance of sinking an aircraft carrier and ICBMs capable of comparable attacks on US targets, you would consider the attack to establish a state of war.
No, I would consider that the likelihood of our act resulting in an escalation into an actual war would be greater in that case, and of course would then have to be considered in our response.
If the USSR, for example, had decided to use nerve gas against dissidents in the Caucaus in 1979, then I would certainly have felt that that was a terrible thing, but out ability to do anything about it would be almost negligible in a direct sense. We could (and should) respond using other means, but military force would not be a viable option. However, the USSR in 1979 was not a rogue state, hence unlikely to do something like that, and also more suscpetible to non-military pressures in any case, and hence there are more levers to be used to constrain their actions.
Syria today is not the same of course. They do not have the capability to widen strikes by France/US/others into a general conflict, and they are also enough of a pariah state that they are not likely to care about any non-military response we may use. So that leaves us with the remaining levers we have that
A) Might actually have some effect, and
B) Are not likely to widen the conflict even moreso or in a fashion that is counter-productive.
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 10:38:06 AM
I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.
You know, I've sort of been wondering that myself :hmm:
It's so hilarious; this isn't the first time you've ascribed some sort of cynical political Machiavellian objective behind the Administration's workings. When are you going to realize that he's simply not that kind of guy?
He's a former professor of law. He's not only not built like Nixon, he's fundamentally incapable of thinking like him. This President, and the people he surrounds himself with, are the most politically transparent we've had since Carter, the level of idealistic naïveté is actually that great.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 12:34:23 PM
Because allowing inspectors appropriate access was a condition of the peace treaty, to which the US was a party.
In Syria, the US has no interests. The UN Security Council was set up for this type of situation, and is not inclined to act. Also, there is probably less international support for attacking Syria than there was Iraq.
From what I can tell it wasn't a peace treaty but a UN Resolution that was violated. I'm willing to bet that the language in it is just as specific as to violations as the Geneva Conventions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 01:39:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 03, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 10:38:06 AM
I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.
You know, I've sort of been wondering that myself :hmm:
It's so hilarious; this isn't the first time you've ascribed some sort of cynical political Machiavellian objective behind the Administration's workings. When are you going to realize that he's simply not that kind of guy?
He's a former professor of law. He's not only not built like Nixon, he's fundamentally incapable of thinking like him. This President, and the people he surrounds himself with, are the most politically transparent we've had since Carter, the level of idealistic naïveté is actually that great.
Well I would respect him more. -_-
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 01:26:56 PM
A major problem with getting involved is it is going to create animosity and blame to the US for years to come. Just check out the Iran coup thread--over half a century later we are getting blamed for the trouble in the country. And in this particular case, for what? Does anyone think firing missiles into Syria will fix anything?
I understand the concern.
But I think I've realized that if we act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we don't act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we kind of act, the masses in the ME will blame us.
We are blamed in Iran for interceding decades ago. But can they honestly say that the situation in Iran *today* is because of what happened in 1953? Or 1979? They took over 30+ years ago, and if their country is still fucked up, who is that on?
Well, it is on us, because they don't want to face the reality that if they haven't fixed what our interference supposedly broke over three decades ago...
But it doesn't matter. The US is too convenient a locus for blame for any actions we take to actually effect it in any case, so I don't see that concerns about the masses blaming us some day in the future should enter into our policy decisions. They are going to do so if we act. They are going to do so if we don't act. Oh well.
The goal here is not to help the rebels win, or keep Assad from winning. It is to punish the regime for using WMDs against their civilians, so that maybe in the future the next Assad might think twice about it.
I await the hilarity of Russian lawmakers rushing to the states to lobby against the use of force.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Well I would respect him more. -_-
As would I; but it's simply not part of the package with this guy.
Don't worry, Miss Machiavelli If You're Nasty will bring Presidential cynicism back in vogue in 2016. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 01:47:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Well I would respect him more. -_-
As would I; but it's simply not part of the package with this guy.
Don't worry, Miss Machiavelli If You're Nasty will bring Presidential cynicism back in vogue in 2016. :)
That had better happen. :(
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:00:53 PM
*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.
I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.
That is the critical difference in this instance, though, correct?
If Syria had the means of fighting back, say a legitimate chance of sinking an aircraft carrier and ICBMs capable of comparable attacks on US targets, you would consider the attack to establish a state of war.
No, I would consider that the likelihood of our act resulting in an escalation into an actual war would be greater in that case, and of course would then have to be considered in our response.
If the USSR, for example, had decided to use nerve gas against dissidents in the Caucaus in 1979, then I would certainly have felt that that was a terrible thing, but out ability to do anything about it would be almost negligible in a direct sense. We could (and should) respond using other means, but military force would not be a viable option. However, the USSR in 1979 was not a rogue state, hence unlikely to do something like that, and also more suscpetible to non-military pressures in any case, and hence there are more levers to be used to constrain their actions.
Syria today is not the same of course. They do not have the capability to widen strikes by France/US/others into a general conflict, and they are also enough of a pariah state that they are not likely to care about any non-military response we may use. So that leaves us with the remaining levers we have that
A) Might actually have some effect, and
B) Are not likely to widen the conflict even moreso or in a fashion that is counter-productive.
I still don't understand what was wrong with what I wrote assessing your point of view....
"it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."
You used the word escalation, but if we attack someone from the sea, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our naval forces. If we attack command and control centers, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our command and control centers. Surely that would establish a state of war...
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 01:51:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 01:11:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:00:53 PM
*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.
I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.
That is the critical difference in this instance, though, correct?
If Syria had the means of fighting back, say a legitimate chance of sinking an aircraft carrier and ICBMs capable of comparable attacks on US targets, you would consider the attack to establish a state of war.
No, I would consider that the likelihood of our act resulting in an escalation into an actual war would be greater in that case, and of course would then have to be considered in our response.
If the USSR, for example, had decided to use nerve gas against dissidents in the Caucaus in 1979, then I would certainly have felt that that was a terrible thing, but out ability to do anything about it would be almost negligible in a direct sense. We could (and should) respond using other means, but military force would not be a viable option. However, the USSR in 1979 was not a rogue state, hence unlikely to do something like that, and also more suscpetible to non-military pressures in any case, and hence there are more levers to be used to constrain their actions.
Syria today is not the same of course. They do not have the capability to widen strikes by France/US/others into a general conflict, and they are also enough of a pariah state that they are not likely to care about any non-military response we may use. So that leaves us with the remaining levers we have that
A) Might actually have some effect, and
B) Are not likely to widen the conflict even moreso or in a fashion that is counter-productive.
I still don't understand what was wrong with what I wrote assessing your point of view....
"it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."
You used the word escalation, but if we attack someone from the sea, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our naval forces. If we attack command and control centers, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our command and control centers. Surely that would establish a state of war...
If they had the ability to do those things, then of course we should consider that in our chosen means of responding to their actions.
But they don't, hence why should we worry about it? That is just the pragmatic reality of the situation. We can launch cruise missile with impunity, hence the concern that this could widen into a general war between Syria and the US is simply not relevant. It cannot, because they lack that capability.
If they had that capability, like my USSR example, then of course we should take that into consideration, and that may potentially constrain our ability to react. Your example of North Korea illustrates that well. North Korea could respond to any strike by wiping out Seoul. We have to consider that in any decision we make.
There are responses that Syria can take that we must consider of course. They could start throwing missiles at Israel. I imagine that possibility has been considered. They could fire some ASMs at any ships we have in the area I suppose, but I suspect that they have no real capability of doing so with any actual chance of success.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:45:49 PM
But I think I've realized that if we act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we don't act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we kind of act, the masses in the ME will blame us.
We are blamed in Iran for interceding decades ago. But can they honestly say that the situation in Iran *today* is because of what happened in 1953? Or 1979? They took over 30+ years ago, and if their country is still fucked up, who is that on?
We have rather severe sanctions on Iran and gave some support to their enemies when they were attacked. I don't think the US is the reason Iran is fucked up by any stretch, but the idea we've contributed to the mess isn't crazy either.
We have a robustly hands on policy in the Middle East. The list of ME countries we have either recently intervened in militarily or provide substantial aid to is significant. It isn't a stretch to say we are a major factor in any ME country's politics because of that.
What if we went hands off in the Middle East for a bit? Maybe that would be the healthiest option for everyone and start to break the "blame the US" sentiments.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 02:01:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 01:45:49 PM
But I think I've realized that if we act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we don't act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we kind of act, the masses in the ME will blame us.
We are blamed in Iran for interceding decades ago. But can they honestly say that the situation in Iran *today* is because of what happened in 1953? Or 1979? They took over 30+ years ago, and if their country is still fucked up, who is that on?
We have rather severe sanctions on Iran and gave some support to their enemies when they were attacked. I don't think the US is the reason Iran is fucked up by any stretch, but the idea we've contributed to the mess isn't crazy either.
We have a robustly hands on policy in the Middle East. The list of ME countries we have either recently intervened in militarily or provide substantial aid to is significant. It isn't a stretch to say we are a major factor in any ME country's politics because of that.
What if we went hands off in the Middle East for a bit? Maybe that would be the healthiest option for everyone and start to break the "blame the US" sentiments.
That would work if in fact the basis of the "blame the US" sentiments were a reasoned and considered appraisal of US actions in the ME. But they are not - indeed, I think it is safe to say that the "intervention" of the US in ME affairs has overall been vastly positive for the ME, rather than the source of the problems.
We could go "hands off". It won't matter one bit from the standpoint of those with a vested interest in deflecting blame, but instead would make things much, much worse. Which we would then be blamed for by those who are not making rational evaluations as well.
Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:59:41 PM
China - Do not know. Don't really care either.
Latin America - Do not know. Neither do you.
Germany - Certianly against, but then, they are against everything.
Russia - Against, but for reasons that make me more inclined to support rather than less.
Arabic World - Mixed, I imagine.
Spain - Don't know
Italy - Don't know
France - Like much of Africa, we should still be running the place.
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2013, 12:45:50 PM
I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues, of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.
No, not a good idea. All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core. Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas. The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone. At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers. Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 04:52:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2013, 12:45:50 PM
I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues, of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.
No, not a good idea. All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core. Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas. The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone. At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers. Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.
Yeah, we'd probably be finding ourselves at war with Israel or have the UN sanction an invasion of the US.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 04:52:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2013, 12:45:50 PM
I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues, of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.
No, not a good idea. All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core. Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas. The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone. At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers. Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.
Since the UN is a garbage relic of when we were allies with the Soviets and when the Good Chinese controlled the mainland, who cares?
I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to renegotiate their position in UN. India and Brazil, if they continue growing at their current pace, are going to resent being victimized due to fossilized UN structure. The former Axis powers would likewise be unhappy with the terms imposed upon them due to losing the war. :hmm:
There is also the possibility that Russia may at some point overplay its hand and lose its veto power. After all, they only have veto power if other big players agree that they have veto power. It's not like they have some court to appeal to if, er, something happened to their veto. :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2013, 08:11:28 PM
I agree with the Israelis, if we do nothing it bodes very poorly for Iranian behavior in the future.
I don't see the logic in that.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 04:52:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2013, 12:45:50 PM
I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues, of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.
No, not a good idea. All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core. Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas. The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone. At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers. Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.
Take note: He did limit it to the UNSC.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2013, 05:20:46 PM
I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to renegotiate their position in UN. India and Brazil, if they continue growing at their current pace, are going to resent being victimized due to fossilized UN structure. The former Axis powers would likewise be unhappy with the terms imposed upon them due to losing the war. :hmm:
There is also the possibility that Russia may at some point overplay its hand and lose its veto power. After all, they only have veto power if other big players agree that they have veto power. It's not like they have some court to appeal to if, er, something happened to their veto. :unsure:
Maybe we can trick them into a boycott again. After all, it worked 53 years ago.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 03, 2013, 05:34:13 PM
Take note: He did limit it to the UNSC.
Yeah, but UNSC members themselves are voted on by all the kids, even the ones from the special ed class.
If that were entirely true, the U.S. would have been kicked off long ago.
This kicking to Congress thing is interesting.
What are your guys' thinking on:
A: the reason Obama kicked it to Congress?
I've heard "political cover for an unpopular action" and "genuine belief that that's how it should be done" in this thread? Any other scenarios?
B: How's do you see it playing out? Both in terms of US domestic politics and in Syria?
With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 03, 2013, 05:39:39 PM
If that were entirely true, the U.S. would have been kicked off long ago.
I meant non-permanent members, obviously.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 03, 2013, 05:42:07 PM
With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.
Yup, it'll go through now.
And for all their barking, even the GOP doesn't want to seem weak on foreign policy. The President will get the authorization he wants.
Jacob: it's all for the appearance of legitimacy. US polling says the public doesn't like the idea, but that won't matter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 03, 2013, 05:42:07 PM
With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.
Yup, it'll go through now.
And for all their barking, even the GOP doesn't want to seem weak on foreign policy. The President will get the authorization he wants.
Jacob: it's all for the appearance of legitimacy. US polling says the public doesn't like the idea, but that won't matter.
So it breaks down to this: Obama thinks he should do it, the US public is lukewarm - so he gets Congress to give him approval to get political cover?
Seems reasonable to me.
It's kind of interesting to see this moment where pro- and anti- types haven't quite found their one-dimensional narratives with broad buy-in yet.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2013, 05:53:39 PM
It's kind of interesting to see this moment where pro- and anti- types haven't quite found their one-dimensional narratives with broad buy-in yet.
It's kind of hard sometimes, you know? :(
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2013, 05:41:37 PM
This kicking to Congress thing is interesting.
What are your guys' thinking on:
A: the reason Obama kicked it to Congress?
I've heard "political cover for an unpopular action" and "genuine belief that that's how it should be done" in this thread? Any other scenarios?
B: How's do you see it playing out? Both in terms of US domestic politics and in Syria?
To answer B, I could be wrong but I bet this means immigration reform won't happen.
The House Republican leadership is under pressure not to give immigration reform a chance to pass because it apparently has a majority of support in the House but not a majority of republican support. There has been speculation that passing immigration reform could result in a change in republican leadership. On the other hand, republican leadership has to know that it is seen as obstructionist and knee jerk anti - Obama.
I doubt that they would move twice to piss off their base in close succession. It seems more likely they would split the issues to also ease the obstructionist image, while holding the line on what really matters to them.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2013, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 03, 2013, 05:42:07 PM
With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.
Yup, it'll go through now.
And for all their barking, even the GOP doesn't want to seem weak on foreign policy. The President will get the authorization he wants.
Jacob: it's all for the appearance of legitimacy. US polling says the public doesn't like the idea, but that won't matter.
So it breaks down to this: Obama thinks he should do it, the US public is lukewarm - so he gets Congress to give him approval to get political cover?
Seems reasonable to me.
It's kind of interesting to see this moment where pro- and anti- types haven't quite found their one-dimensional narratives with broad buy-in yet.
I think this guy's closer than most journalists to Obama's reasoning.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/09/obama_going_to_congress_on_syria_he_s_actually_strengthening_the_war_powers.html
Quote
Obama Is Only Making His War Powers Mightier
The credit the president is getting for asking Congress to authorize bombing Syria? He deserves none of it.
By Eric Posner|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, at 1:07 PM
President Obama's surprise announcement that he will ask Congress for approval of a military attack on Syria is being hailed as a vindication of the rule of law and a revival of the central role of Congress in war-making, even by critics. But all of this is wrong. Far from breaking new legal ground, President Obama has reaffirmed the primacy of the executive in matters of war and peace. The war powers of the presidency remain as mighty as ever.
It would have been different if the president had announced that only Congress can authorize the use of military force, as dictated by the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to declare war. That would have been worthy of notice, a reversal of the ascendance of executive power over Congress. But the president said no such thing. He said: "I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization." Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that the president "has the right to do that"—launch a military strike—"no matter what Congress does."
Thus, the president believes that the law gives him the option to seek a congressional yes or to act on his own. He does not believe that he is bound to do the first. He has merely stated the law as countless other presidents and their lawyers have described it before him.
Advertisement
The president's announcement should be understood as a political move, not a legal one. His motive is both self-serving and easy to understand, and it has been all but acknowledged by the administration. If Congress now approves the war, it must share blame with the president if what happens next in Syria goes badly. If Congress rejects the war, it must share blame with the president if Bashar al-Assad gases more Syrian children. The big problem for Obama arises if Congress says no and he decides he must go ahead anyway, and then the war goes badly. He won't have broken the law as he understands it, but he will look bad. He would be the first president ever to ask Congress for the power to make war and then to go to war after Congress said no. (In the past, presidents who expected dissent did not ask Congress for permission.)
People who celebrate the president for humbly begging Congress for approval also apparently don't realize that his understanding of the law—that it gives him the option to go to Congress—maximizes executive power vis-à-vis Congress. If the president were required to act alone, without Congress, then he would have to take the blame for failing to use force when he should and using force when he shouldn't. If he were required to obtain congressional authorization, then Congress would be able to block him. But if he can have it either way, he can force Congress to share responsibility when he wants to and avoid it when he knows that it will stand in his way.
This approach also empowers the president relative to Congress by giving him the ability to embarrass members of Congress when he wants to. Just ask Hillary Clinton, whose vote in favor of the 2003 Iraq War damaged her chances against Barack Obama in 2008, and the Democratic senators who could not enter the 1992 campaign for the presidency because their votes against the 1991 Iraq War rendered them unelectable. The best thing for individual members of Congress is to be able to carp on the sidelines—to complain about not being consulted and to blame the president if the war goes badly. That is why David Axelrod said, "Congress is now the dog that caught the car." This is hardball politics, not a rediscovery of legal values.
If Obama gains by spreading blame among Congress, why didn't the president ask Congress for military authorization earlier, before he threatened Syria with a missile strike? The answer appears to be that the president expected international support for the invasion and believed that if other countries supported him, he would not need support in Congress. Only when the British poodle rediscovered its inner lion did he shift gears. Again, this has nothing to do with the law; it's a matter of political prudence.
And it is not hard to see why foreign countries refused to provide support. The legal rationale for the Syria intervention that the president fashioned—deterring the use of chemical weapons—has satisfied no other country. While no one likes chemical weapons, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. must deter their use by striking Syria. Iraq used chemical weapons 30 years ago, but no country followed its lead—even though no one bombed Iraq to punish it. Countries refrain from using chemical weapons because they inspire revulsion among people that governments usually need for support, not because there is a "norm" against them. And no matter how often Obama and Kerry say that they must intervene to enforce this norm, everyone understands that the real reason for U.S. intervention is to maintain the administration's credibility, or to ensure that the U.S. retains influence over events, or to give a psychological boost to moderate Syrian rebel groups—not to vindicate international law (which the U.S. is violating in any event by disregarding the United Nations charter).
Some countries want to bombard Syria in order to stop the atrocities or counter Iran or lift favored rebel groups to power. Other countries want Syria left alone. But no country (except perhaps France) sees any sense in a limited strike to punish Syria for using chemical weapons—and, moreover, in such a way as to sting but not topple Assad's government, a view shared by Sen. John McCain as well. You either kill the rattlesnake or leave it alone; you don't poke it with a stick. So Obama's international law theory failed not just because of its legal defects, but because it did not mesh with political realities. When Obama charged ahead nonetheless, he found himself naked and alone, and he turned to Congress for cover.
I think the Bathists will be disappointed.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syrian-forces-us-missile-targets
Quote
Syrian military commanders are continuing to redeploy forces away from sensitive sites ahead of a postponed US air strike that many in Damascus believe is still likely.
Residents of the Syrian capital said on Monday that troops had moved into schools and universities, which officials calculate are unlikely to be hit if Barack Obama orders an attack following a congressional vote next Monday.
After a week of deep anxiety, his declaration that he would ask Congress to debate his plans to attack led to intense relief in the past 48 hours among many in Damascus, and well beyond.
Damascenes reported more checkpoints than usual in regime-held areas, but said the capital continued to function as it had during the past two years of ever more entrenched war. In rebel-held districts, where siege and deprivation have bitten deeper, locals claimed a sense of despair had descended after Obama's speech.
"They were so close to doing something," said Umm Latifa, the widowed head of a household of six children in east Damascus. "Anything to make [the regime] scared would have been a blessing."
In Beirut, where last week's buildup was also acutely felt, the streets were at their busiest in several weeks and a palpable air of tension appeared to have lifted slightly. But by nightfall on Monday, reminders of what might lay ahead resurfaced as Lebanese media carried reports of Hezbollah ordering thousands of its members to switch off their phones and report to fighting positions.
The reaction to a strike from the powerful Shia militia, a resolute ally of the Assad regime, will be instrumental in determining whether the stated US goal of a narrow operation can be achieved.
Many in Lebanon fear that some form of retribution from Syria's allies is inevitable, unless they are convinced that the propaganda value of riding out a short, sharp attack that changes little is higher than the cost of not responding.
"This is a very big decision for Hezbollah – make that Iran," said a Lebanese political leader who did not want to be named. "They want to create the impression that it's all on the line for the Americans. But it's bluff at this point. A game with very high stakes."
Their fates long seen as indelibly tied, Lebanon's fortunes, and the confidence of its residents, have risen and fallen roughly in line with those of the Syrian government. Two large car bombs in Tripoli, Lebanon, and a relatively rare rocket attack against Israel quickly followed the suspected chemical weapons attack in Damascus of 21 April, prompting some Beirut-based political foes of the Assad regime to suggest the attacks were planned as a diversion.
The Lebanese Internal Security Forces have charged two clerics in the north, who they allege had confessed to dealings with Syrian intelligence figures in the days before the blasts and knew that the two bomb-laden cars had been driven to Tripoli from the Syrian city of Tartus.
They have also charged in absentia the head of Syria's General Intelligence Bureau, General Ali Mamlouk, as well as a junior intelligence officer.
It emerged on Monday that Russia had dispatched a military reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, where five US warships are operating in the lead-up to a widely expected air strike in Syria.
The Priazovye departed for the Syrian coast on Sunday to keep tabs on the situation there, Russia's state news agency Itar-Tass quoted a military source as saying. Russia's foreign minister has previously said his country was not planning to become involved in a military conflict over Syria.
"This is the normal policy of any fleet in the case of an increase in tensions in any ocean or sea," the source said.
The Russian deployment follows the arrival last week of the USS Stout, a guided missile destroyer, sent to relieve the USS Mahan. A US defence official told AFP that both destroyers might remain in the area for now. Along with the Ramage, the Barry and the Gravely, the destroyers could launch Tomahawk missiles at targets in Syria if Obama orders an attack.
A group of US ships led by the aircraft carrier Nimitz have been deployed in the Arabian Sea.
On Monday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said a US strike would put the proposed Geneva II peace conference in serious doubt, Itar-Tass reported.
"If the action announced by the president of the US unfortunately occurs, it will put off prospects for the forum for a long time, if not for ever," Lavrov said.
Lavrov said Moscow remained unconvinced by US allegations that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack after a meeting between the US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, and a senior Russian diplomat. The material presented by the US contained no facts and "absolutely does not convince us", Lavrov said.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2013, 05:41:37 PM
This kicking to Congress thing is interesting.
What are your guys' thinking on:
A: the reason Obama kicked it to Congress?
I've heard "political cover for an unpopular action" and "genuine belief that that's how it should be done" in this thread? Any other scenarios?
B: How's do you see it playing out? Both in terms of US domestic politics and in Syria?
To answer B, I could be wrong but I bet this means immigration reform won't happen.
The House Republican leadership is under pressure not to give immigration reform a chance to pass because it apparently has a majority of support in the House but not a majority of republican support. There has been speculation that passing immigration reform could result in a change in republican leadership. On the other hand, republican leadership has to know that it is seen as obstructionist and knee jerk anti - Obama.
I doubt that they would move twice to piss off their base in close succession. It seems more likely they would split the issues to also ease the obstructionist image, while holding the line on what really matters to them.
I don't see a whole lot of evidence that voting to authorize action against Syria would piss of the base. Best as I can tell, most people don't really give a shit one way or another if we lob a few cruise missles at Syria (actually invading Syria would be another matter).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 03, 2013, 06:32:51 PM
I think the Bathists will be disappointed.
:yes: Clinton "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy which housed Serbian communication center. I don't think Syrian schools measure up to that.
Who gets cover if a bunch more Syrians get gassed while we're waiting for Congress to vote?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 03, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
Who gets cover if a bunch more Syrians get gassed while we're waiting for Congress to vote?
Probably not the Syrians being gassed.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 03, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
Who gets cover if a bunch more Syrians get gassed while we're waiting for Congress to vote?
Obama could always blame the Brits: "If our British allies hadn't been opposed to punishing the Syrian government for the using chemical weapons, I wouldn't have felt it necessary to get approval from Congress before taking military action".
Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.onionstatic.com%2Fimages%2F23%2F23354%2Foriginal%2F700.jpg%3F4599&hash=8ac5d2dbda0fef9ac786a6c0f864c19b7b1ed2bd)
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."
Con't: http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-assures-americans-this-will-not-be-another-1,33719/
That was fun. :)
I hope our entry into Syria mirrors instead the Ottoman advance of 1516. :)
That's the best he can come up with.
Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 06:39:53 PM
I don't see a whole lot of evidence that voting to authorize action against Syria would piss of the base. Best as I can tell, most people don't really give a shit one way or another if we lob a few cruise missles at Syria (actually invading Syria would be another matter).
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/03/matt_drudge_asks_why_would_anyone_vote_republican.html
And apparently the online poll he has shows 10-1 against involvement.
I'm not Ottoman Empire. :lol:
Quote"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."
:D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.carbonated.tv%2F114114_story__6.jpg&hash=fe1f792abb4a9495850a03605b03c7b98aab2142)
Lol
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a
Quote from: alfred russel on September 03, 2013, 08:27:24 PM
Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 06:39:53 PM
I don't see a whole lot of evidence that voting to authorize action against Syria would piss of the base. Best as I can tell, most people don't really give a shit one way or another if we lob a few cruise missles at Syria (actually invading Syria would be another matter).
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/03/matt_drudge_asks_why_would_anyone_vote_republican.html
And apparently the online poll he has shows 10-1 against involvement.
Yeah, I don't doubt that if you ask people their opinion, most are against military action against Syria, but that doesn't mean that they really care one way or the other. Just like if you ask me if I think that Georgia should fire Mark Richt because of the loss to Clemson, I'd say of they shouldn't, it would be silly--but on the other hand I don't care if they do.
Saw an interesting poll stat earlier tonight: in December 2012, use of force against Syria was polled positively at 65%. How it's dropped so much, especially in light of chemical weapons use, is an interesting question.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 10:00:41 PM
Saw an interesting poll stat earlier tonight: in December 2012, use of force against Syria was polled positively at 65%. How it's dropped so much, especially in light of chemical weapons use, is an interesting question.
The "rebels are Al- Qaeda" fearmongering.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 10:00:41 PM
Saw an interesting poll stat earlier tonight: in December 2012, use of force against Syria was polled positively at 65%. How it's dropped so much, especially in light of chemical weapons use, is an interesting question.
Post-election optimism.
Approval of the economy, foreign policy, Obama performance, etc. have also plummeted since then.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Obama's credibility is not on the line. Because he said so.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/04/president_obama_my_credibility_is_not_on_the_line.html
The buck does not stop with him-- it stops with 98% of the world's population.
I would have thought you agreed with on that. After all, you don't think he has any credibility.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2013, 11:36:28 AM
I would have thought you agreed with on that.
In a sense, I do. At least, I wouldn't hold it against him if he decided not to go with military action as I don't believe we gain anything from it (side note, I believe he does have the power to act if he decides to do so, with or without congressional approval).
But it comes across as spineless to claim that everyone else's credibility is on the line (including Congress's!)-- but not his!
Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 09:53:16 PM
Yeah, I don't doubt that if you ask people their opinion, most are against military action against Syria, but that doesn't mean that they really care one way or the other. Just like if you ask me if I think that Georgia should fire Mark Richt because of the loss to Clemson, I'd say of they shouldn't, it would be silly--but on the other hand I don't care if they do.
I think they need to stop scheduling tough teams first week of the season. They're never ready.
I haven't been for this action in Syria to be taken unilaterally by the US, or with just a few willing nations. I'm very wary of the amendment that McCain had added which aims towards leveling the field between Assad and the Rebels which means the US can take much broader action. Especially if the Assad regime is weakened enough by US action and falls, then the US may send in many thousands of troops to secure the WMD stockpiles. That can be considered a non-combat action so passes muster with the spirit of the action being debated by Congress, just securing the sites, but obviously that will entail fighting with Hezbollah, Iranian fighters and other factions and I'd think likely over a long time period.
Quote from: KRonn on September 05, 2013, 07:25:44 AM
I haven't been for this action in Syria to be taken unilaterally by the US, or with just a few willing nations. I'm very wary of the amendment that McCain had added which aims towards leveling the field between Assad and the Rebels which means the US can take much broader action. Especially if the Assad regime is weakened enough by US action and falls, then the US may send in many thousands of troops to secure the WMD stockpiles. That can be considered a non-combat action so passes muster with the spirit of the action being debated by Congress, just securing the sites, but obviously that will entail fighting with Hezbollah, Iranian fighters and other factions and I'd think likely over a long time period.
actually, just flying in when major fighting stops, landing airborne at the known chemical storage sites, grabbing whatever is there, and then getting the fuck out (shooting anybody who raises an eyebrow in the process), never looking back would be a great idea. I don`t think the US has the balls for it though.
I wonder if McCain suffers from some kind of complex that makes him involve US in all kinds of unlimited fights. Maybe he never got it out of his system, being put out of action so early in his Vietnam tour.
Gotta kill us some sand gooks.
Quote from: Tamas on September 05, 2013, 07:33:20 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 05, 2013, 07:25:44 AM
I haven't been for this action in Syria to be taken unilaterally by the US, or with just a few willing nations. I'm very wary of the amendment that McCain had added which aims towards leveling the field between Assad and the Rebels which means the US can take much broader action. Especially if the Assad regime is weakened enough by US action and falls, then the US may send in many thousands of troops to secure the WMD stockpiles. That can be considered a non-combat action so passes muster with the spirit of the action being debated by Congress, just securing the sites, but obviously that will entail fighting with Hezbollah, Iranian fighters and other factions and I'd think likely over a long time period.
actually, just flying in when major fighting stops, landing airborne at the known chemical storage sites, grabbing whatever is there, and then getting the fuck out (shooting anybody who raises an eyebrow in the process), never looking back would be a great idea. I don`t think the US has the balls for it though.
Well, if the US takes further action to destablize the Syrian regime and helps cause its downfall, the US would seem to have some responsibility for securing the chems/bios, or face the blame for the stuff falling into the wrong hands. And it would likely be a larger and longer effort to secure the sites than a short event. Moving around among many hostile forces which would involve some fighting to locate and secure sites, find new sites the stuff has been moved to, securing airfields for transport planes or moving by truck to the coast, in order to transport many tons of the stuff out. Pentagon estimates that I heard discussed in the news said seventy-five thousand troops may be needed for this task.
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 07:41:04 AM
I wonder if McCain suffers from some kind of complex that makes him involve US in all kinds of unlimited fights. Maybe he never got it out of his system, being put out of action so early in his Vietnam tour.
McCain is still, and has always been, a firm believer in the approach that US power is a force of good and that the US is, as John Kerry said yesterday, the indispensable nation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 02:01:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 05, 2013, 07:41:04 AM
I wonder if McCain suffers from some kind of complex that makes him involve US in all kinds of unlimited fights. Maybe he never got it out of his system, being put out of action so early in his Vietnam tour.
McCain is still, and has always been, a firm believer in the approach that US power is a force of good and that the US is, as John Kerry said yesterday, the indispensable nation.
Someone has to believe it. Lord knows nobody on the left does anymore.
Funny, I happen to see a President and a Secretary of State that still do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 03:54:16 PM
Funny, I happen to see a President and a Secretary of State that still do.
Yeah, but the President is being pretty amazingly fucking wishy washy about it.
But I take your point. I was probably being a bit more douchesnarky than was warranted.
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
Quote from: Berkut on September 05, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 03:54:16 PM
Funny, I happen to see a President and a Secretary of State that still do.
Yeah, but the President is being pretty amazingly fucking wishy washy about it.
But I take your point. I was probably being a bit more douchesnarky than was warranted.
A sense of detachment, slow deliberation and an overly analytical approach to decision-making to the point it makes Hamlet look decisive is one thing--that's what happens when constitutional law professors get elected President--but this Administration has always shown all the signs of promoting classic liberalism in US foreign policy.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
Which Damascus suburb does he live in?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
Which Damascus suburb does he live in?
Middletown.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
The options that present themselves:
a) deaf, dumb or blind - or all of them;
b) he thought you were asking his thoughts on what toilet paper you should use;
c) He isnt Syrian
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
I haven't asked my Syrian step-relatives about this. They're Christians and have been in the US since the early 1900s, arriving in the US about the same time as my early Italian relatives. Some are staunch Dems, others the opposite. But generally many oppose the US getting so involved around the world, not just in the Mid East.
I become more and more against this intervention the longer that time goes on for a number of reasons. Besides feeling it won't do much and if it does then the US stands to be pulled in more. Plus if few other nations think it's worthwhile then why should the US uphold standards that few care about? Why put our necks on the line. I think more that it's become theatre of the absurd the way it's been handled. All the foolish and feckless arguing over so much of the issue, including the "red line" stuff, and who said what. Our leaders, administration and Congress look foolish the more they debate.
Then too Syria isn't a small, hapless nation unable to strike back in some ways via its allies and terrorist groups. It's one of the major nations of the Mid East with some dangerous allies like Hezbollah and Iran. All are very capable of striking back at the US or Europe with bombings and such. These groups make Al Qaida look like rank amateurs and have the training, funding and backing of governments.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
I thought the point he was making is that assimilation works. :D
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
If you're from a country, one would think that you would care that it's being torn apart in a brutal civil war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 07:40:34 PM
If you're from a country, one would think that you would care that it's being torn apart in a brutal civil war.
Why would it make a difference that you're from that country?
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2013, 07:42:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 07:40:34 PM
If you're from a country, one would think that you would care that it's being torn apart in a brutal civil war.
Why would it make a difference that you're from that country?
No shit. I mean, yeah, maybe you're worried about friends or extended family, or wondering if the ol' bedroom is being used as an Al-Nusra .50 cal emplacement, but aren't most people that have emigrated to better countries glad they got the hell of out Dodge when they did?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:45:39 PM
No shit. I mean, yeah, maybe you're worried about friends or extended family, or wondering if the ol' bedroom is being used as an Al-Nusra .50 cal emplacement, but aren't most people that have emigrated to better countries glad they got the hell of out Dodge when they did?
I think you're missing the point.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 07:40:34 PM
If you're from a country, one would think that you would care that it's being torn apart in a brutal civil war.
It's not as if he's fresh off the boat. His family came here in the 20s or 30s. I think they were some funky brand of eastern rite Catholic, but did the right thing and converted to a mainstream protestant church when they settled in Indiana.
In contrast to KRonn's in-laws, my uncle and his family are pretty conservative-- more so than I, in fact.
The point is, I'm sure derspiess' uncle is glad he's not getting gassed in Damascus. Warren County is a tough enough gig.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:48:12 PM
In contrast to KRonn's in-laws, my uncle and his family are pretty conservative-- more so than I, in fact.
Whoa.
Quote from: Maximus on September 05, 2013, 07:47:08 PM
I think you're missing the point.
It must be exhausting to be constantly worried about people in the third world shooting and bombing each other.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:49:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:48:12 PM
In contrast to KRonn's in-laws, my uncle and his family are pretty conservative-- more so than I, in fact.
Whoa.
We're talking framed letter from Ollie North in the study here :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
The point is, I'm sure derspiess' uncle is glad he's not getting gassed in Damascus. Warren County is a tough enough gig.
All that White Trash is Middletucky is danger enough.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 07:51:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.
:lol:
If you read that in Kathy Bates' voice, you get double bonus points.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
The point is, I'm sure derspiess' uncle is glad he's not getting gassed in Damascus. Warren County is a tough enough gig.
Plus, their whole clan emigrated from Syria around the same time. He doesn't know of any relatives still in Syria.
Totally unrelated, my uncle makes a mean pork loin roast-- I grew up thinking that was typical Syrian fare :D
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:53:43 PM
We're talking framed letter from Ollie North in the study here :D
Yeah, that's pretty high in the upper layers of the Conservasphere. Not much oxygen up there to get to the brain. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
The point is, I'm sure derspiess' uncle is glad he's not getting gassed in Damascus. Warren County is a tough enough gig.
All that White Trash is Middletucky is danger enough.
True to his middle eastern roots, he shrewdly retired to where he could get the most house for his money, without any regard for how much a pain in the ass it is for us to go up there :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:57:57 PM
True to his middle eastern roots, he shrewdly retired to where he could get the most house for his money, without any regard for how much a pain in the ass it is for us to go up there :lol:
I'm sure there's a good
House of Sand and Fog joke in there somewhere, but
House of Brats and Sweater Vests just doesn't work.
Word is Iran was caught giving instructions to agents in Iraq to do some terrorism there if the Syria attack happens.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 08:02:56 PM
Word is Iran was caught giving instructions to agents in Iraq to do some terrorism there if the Syria attack happens.
So, it'll be like your average Tuesday then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:53:43 PM
We're talking framed letter from Ollie North in the study here :D
Yeah, that's pretty high in the upper layers of the Conservasphere. Not much oxygen up there to get to the brain. :P
It's Indiana. :huh: What do you expect?
The head of the KKK isn't there because it's quaint, you know.
Quote from: merithyn on September 05, 2013, 08:11:07 PM
It's Indiana. :huh: What do you expect?
The head of the KKK isn't there because it's quaint, you know.
It's cause there's no black people outside Gary and Indianapolis.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.
On the internet they're not required. :)
I would never make such a comment in real life.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 05, 2013, 08:02:56 PM
Word is Iran was caught giving instructions to agents in Iraq to do some terrorism there if the Syria attack happens.
More specifically, attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Iraq.
Hmm...maybe it will fail the House after all. :hmm:
That depends on how solid those leans are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria/
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:53:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 07:49:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:48:12 PM
In contrast to KRonn's in-laws, my uncle and his family are pretty conservative-- more so than I, in fact.
Whoa.
We're talking framed letter from Ollie North in the study here :D
I have an autographed photo of him somewhere around here. :goodboy:
Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?
It was different then. You weren't there, man.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:29:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?
It was different then. You weren't there, man.
Yes, breaking the law wasn't so illegal then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 10:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:29:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?
It was different then. You weren't there, man.
Yes, breaking the law wasn't so illegal then.
No shit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
If you're from a country, one would think that you would care that it's being torn apart in a brutal civil war.
Other than what an instructive example it is, I don't care about Spain. No offense, El Larcho, Iorm.
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:33:10 PM
No shit.
I'll trade you two autographed Spiro Agnews for a rookie G. Gordon Liddy.
Deal. Just don't ask for my mint '81 AL HAIG.
Yeah, I went there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BlMqa6PhtDw#t=281
Unlike the rest of your GOP heroes, Al Haig was never indicted.
He did have a "take charge" attitude, I'll give him that.
Better than a "take a cake and some missiles to Tehran" attitude.
I would care very much about a Second English Civil War and my ancestors immigrated sometime between 1680 and 1700. Spicey's Uncle and Ide have no soul.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2013, 10:33:32 PMOther than what an instructive example it is, I don't care about Spain. No offense, El Larcho, Iorm.
You're Spanish?
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 07:48:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 07:40:34 PM
If you're from a country, one would think that you would care that it's being torn apart in a brutal civil war.
It's not as if he's fresh off the boat. His family came here in the 20s or 30s. I think they were some funky brand of eastern rite Catholic, but did the right thing and converted to a mainstream protestant church when they settled in Indiana.
In contrast to KRonn's in-laws, my uncle and his family are pretty conservative-- more so than I, in fact.
Ah, you said he was Syrian ;)
So my option c) not Syrian was accurate
Eh, no.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 02:17:51 PM
Eh, no.
Eh, yes.
QuoteI asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
I thought you were talking about somone who was Syrian - cause you said he was. Turns out he is an American who belongs to a family who immigrated to the US. There is a subtle difference that often eludes people who support the Repulicans. ;)
:rolleyes: He's of Syrian heritage and ethnically identifies as Syrian. I suppose I could type out "Syrian-American" to please pedantic goofballs such as yourself, but I'll just stick with "Syrian" for short.
Well I certainly don't go around calling myself a Scotsman.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
:rolleyes: He's of Syrian heritage and ethnically identifies as Syrian. I suppose I could type out "Syrian-American" to please pedantic goofballs such as yourself, but I'll just stick with "Syrian" for short.
Ok, you use language loosely. How people who dont know your family history should be expected to know that "my Syrian uncle" really means my American uncle is a bit puzzling but ok. I found it strange that you had a Syrian uncle and assumed that one of your aunts married a Syrian.
Again, sorry for not understanding that by Syrian you meant American.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2013, 02:43:27 PM
Well I certainly don't go around calling myself a Scotsman.
That's because you're No True Scotsman. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
:rolleyes: He's of Syrian heritage and ethnically identifies as Syrian. I suppose I could type out "Syrian-American" to please pedantic goofballs such as yourself, but I'll just stick with "Syrian" for short.
Ok, you use language loosely. How people who dont know your family history should be expected to know that "my Syrian uncle" really means my American uncle is a bit puzzling but ok. I found it strange that you had a Syrian uncle and assumed that one of your aunts married a Syrian.
Again, sorry for not understanding that by Syrian you meant American.
I'm not really interested in discussing this with you anymore. Go pick a fight with grumbler if you're that bored.
I'm still with Tim. I don't know why we care.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
:rolleyes: He's of Syrian heritage and ethnically identifies as Syrian. I suppose I could type out "Syrian-American" to please pedantic goofballs such as yourself, but I'll just stick with "Syrian" for short.
Ok, you use language loosely. How people who dont know your family history should be expected to know that "my Syrian uncle" really means my American uncle is a bit puzzling but ok. I found it strange that you had a Syrian uncle and assumed that one of your aunts married a Syrian.
Again, sorry for not understanding that by Syrian you meant American.
I'm not really interested in discussing this with you anymore. Go pick a fight with grumbler if you're that bored.
I have no interest in talking with that Sumerian.
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:11:43 PM
I'm still with Tim. I don't know why we care.
Yes, but that's your answer to
everything.
Well, except the "still with Tim" part. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:11:43 PM
I'm still with Tim. I don't know why we care.
Yes, but that's your answer to everything.
Well, except the "still with Tim" part. ;)
I have topics that I am interested in.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatics.atcloud.com%2Ffiles%2Fcomments%2F158%2F1585654%2Fimages%2F1_display.jpg&hash=d80f8b75f80623591b16905405b1f6ed14a75bdb)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.investitwisely.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2Fpile-of-money1.jpg&hash=9d45c372683e9dcff1bd1ca504c29455d1f746a4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.sport.ro%2Fassets%2Fprotv%2F2013%2F06%2F02%2Fimage_galleries%2F33008%2Fcel-mai-bun-sarut-de-pe-marele-ecran-al-lui-ethan-hawke-s-a-nascut-pentru-a-fi-irezistibila-in-fata-barbatilor_2.jpg&hash=c02c8b4aee1b74f3f0aa5147a0f7d302b565262b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falimentary.co.nz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frsz_1rsz_queen_elizabeth_i_by_george_gower.jpg&hash=7c429caa383e4ffaf472883467ca733c3b183ddb)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb5%2FBen_Cohen_2011.jpg%2F398px-Ben_Cohen_2011.jpg&hash=6b4bb43a4f74aa26719fb6ec30da7618a7712368)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skatesonhaight.com%2Fv%2Fvspfiles%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fkara_starbuck_thrace1.jpg&hash=a1069b135296fc082e29631f16524bee9585170c)
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:11:43 PM
I'm still with Tim. I don't know why we care.
Yes, but that's your answer to everything.
Well, except the "still with Tim" part. ;)
I have topics that I am interested in.
http://statics.atcloud.com/files/comments/158/1585654/images/1_display.jpg
http://www.investitwisely.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/pile-of-money1.jpg
http://assets.sport.ro/assets/protv/2013/06/02/image_galleries/33008/cel-mai-bun-sarut-de-pe-marele-ecran-al-lui-ethan-hawke-s-a-nascut-pentru-a-fi-irezistibila-in-fata-barbatilor_2.jpg
http://alimentary.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/rsz_1rsz_queen_elizabeth_i_by_george_gower.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Ben_Cohen_2011.jpg/398px-Ben_Cohen_2011.jpg
http://www.skatesonhaight.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/kara_starbuck_thrace1.jpg
Natural hair colour and styles
Monopoly money
Large hoop earrings
Portraits, post rediscovery of perspective.
Strictly Come Dancing
And naff tattoos ?
Wow, Hillary didn't make the cut??
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:24:02 PM
I have topics that I am interested in.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.sport.ro%2Fassets%2Fprotv%2F2013%2F06%2F02%2Fimage_galleries%2F33008%2Fcel-mai-bun-sarut-de-pe-marele-ecran-al-lui-ethan-hawke-s-a-nascut-pentru-a-fi-irezistibila-in-fata-barbatilor_2.jpg&hash=c02c8b4aee1b74f3f0aa5147a0f7d302b565262b)
Ide, are you posting on garbon's account again?
Quote from: mongers on September 06, 2013, 03:32:58 PM
Natural hair colour and styles
I thought Lucy Lawless was a natural blonde?
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 03:33:32 PM
Wow, Hillary didn't make the cut??
The list wasn't exhaustive. I also felt that one has been done to death. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:39:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 03:33:32 PM
Wow, Hillary didn't make the cut??
The list wasn't exhaustive. I also felt that one has been done to death. :)
Not yet. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2013, 03:36:52 PM
Ide, are you posting on garbon's account again?
I really liked that movie because of the leads. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
:rolleyes: He's of Syrian heritage and ethnically identifies as Syrian. I suppose I could type out "Syrian-American" to please pedantic goofballs such as yourself, but I'll just stick with "Syrian" for short.
Ok, you use language loosely. How people who dont know your family history should be expected to know that "my Syrian uncle" really means my American uncle is a bit puzzling but ok. I found it strange that you had a Syrian uncle and assumed that one of your aunts married a Syrian.
Again, sorry for not understanding that by Syrian you meant American.
I'm not really interested in discussing this with you anymore. Go pick a fight with grumbler if you're that bored.
I have no interest in talking with that Sumerian.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 08:34:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.
On the internet they're not required. :)
I would never make such a comment in real life.
Well, yeah, 'cause in real life you got no one to talk to.
Blatantly false
Anyways, on the topic of Syria
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2013/Sep-07/230362-hezbollah-iran-and-syria-prepare-for-counterattack.ashx#ixzz2e9v5M5YE
QuoteBEIRUT: Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have set up a joint military operations room to coordinate closely in the event of a U.S. strike on Syria, with Hezbollah mobilizing "tens of thousands" of fighters, senior political and diplomatic sources told The Daily Star Friday.
Even though the U.S. has so far succeeded in keeping the "axis of the resistance" guessing about the targets and scope of the strike, the sources said, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have geared up for the worst-case scenarios.
While nearly every aspect of the expected U.S.-led strike remains in flux, the three players have agreed on a specific course of action if American missiles smash into Syrian territory.
Hezbollah has even called up "tens of thousands" of fighters and reservists in anticipation of the strike, according to political sources.
"Iran, Syria and Hezbollah don't have a clear picture about what Americans have planned," said one diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous. "But those countries too are prepared for various scenarios."
The sources said that Iran and Hezbollah would throw their weight and military skills behind President Bashar Assad if the strike presented a serious threat to the regime or would significantly weaken the Syrian army, the regime's backbone.
"Short of that," one diplomat said, "Hezbollah and Iran are unlikely to be involved."
The diplomatic sources explained that Iran and Hezbollah considered the targeting of key Syrian army posts, military airfields and strategic weapons depots – including long range missiles – a direct threat to Assad's rule and a reason to intervene.
While Syria and Hezbollah have mobilized forces, the sources said the Iranians have begun to prepare themselves for the likelihood that they will launch "strategic missiles" in response.
"The aim of the move was to demonstrate to the United States that Iran was serious," the diplomat said.
Diplomatic and political sources also revealed Syria too has a bank of targets to hit in response to any U.S. attacks, namely in Israel as well as U.S. military bases in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan.
The alliance among Syria, Iran and Hezbollah took shape in the 1990s and despite several attempts to fracture it has so far proven to be resilient.
The alliance is frowned upon by Israel and many Arab countries, which describe it as sectarian and accuse the two countries and Hezbollah of looking to form a "Shiite crescent," comprising Middle East countries – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran – where the majority of people are Shiite or where there is a sizeable Shiite minority.
Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have long refuted the accusations, saying their alliance is solely meant to counter Israel and support the rights and interests of the Palestinians.
But coordination among the three key regional players has never been interrupted even before the unrest in Syria started in March 2011.
The highest-profile tripartite meeting so far took place in February 2010 when Assad, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held talks in Damascus.
Another key event came in April 2013, almost two years into the Syria war, when Nasrallah paid a visit to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Nasrallah has vowed unequivocal support for Assad in the face of a rebellion by what he dubbed "takfiri groups," arguing that the family offered political and logistical support to his group in their struggle to liberate Lebanese territories from Israeli occupation and later on during the 2006 war.
Hezbollah fighters have supported Assad troops at many instances in the past two years, securing a triumphant victory for the Syrian Army against rebel groups in the town of Qusair, just kilometers away from the Lebanese border.
Despite domestic and international chiding for its involvement in the Syrian quagmire, Hezbollah seems unwilling to pull out and plans to fight alongside the regime and make use of its full fighting capacity in case Syria comes under attack.
Political sources said the party put on alert "tens of thousands" of fighters and reservists – part timers and full-timers – in anticipation of a U.S. strike.
The sources said ever since August 2006, when a 34-day war with Israel concluded, Hezbollah has launched a large-scale operation to take on new recruits and has organized training camps during the summer for thousands of young people in south Lebanon and the Baalbek and Hermel regions in the northern Bekaa Valley.
"Everyone in Hezbollah who has been trained to use weapons has been put on high alert," one political source explained. "The party is ready for all eventualities."
Quote from: Jacob on September 06, 2013, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2013, 10:33:32 PMOther than what an instructive example it is, I don't care about Spain. No offense, El Larcho, Iorm.
You're Spanish?
About as much as the Syrian guys mentioned, yeah.
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2013, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 06, 2013, 03:11:43 PM
I'm still with Tim. I don't know why we care.
Yes, but that's your answer to everything.
Well, except the "still with Tim" part. ;)
I have topics that I am interested in.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.sport.ro%2Fassets%2Fprotv%2F2013%2F06%2F02%2Fimage_galleries%2F33008%2Fcel-mai-bun-sarut-de-pe-marele-ecran-al-lui-ethan-hawke-s-a-nascut-pentru-a-fi-irezistibila-in-fata-barbatilor_2.jpg&hash=c02c8b4aee1b74f3f0aa5147a0f7d302b565262b)
:)
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:33:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 10:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:29:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?
It was different then. You weren't there, man.
Yes, breaking the law wasn't so illegal then.
No shit.
So, is some kind of Omerta thing, where he takes the fall for the God-King and the GOP doesn't have to face another President resign or face impeachment?
Quote from: dps on September 06, 2013, 06:34:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 08:34:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 05, 2013, 06:17:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
I asked my Syrian uncle over the weekend to for his thoughts on the situation in Syria: he still doesn't give a shit.
And you felt the need to tell us he's a bad person, why?
:huh:
Timmay doesn't have what we call the 'social skills'.
On the internet they're not required. :)
I would never make such a comment in real life.
Well, yeah, 'cause in real life you got no one to talk to.
That was uncalled for, IMO. :thumbsdown:
Yeah, Tim has lots of underage girls he could be talking to. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2013, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:33:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 05, 2013, 10:31:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 05, 2013, 10:29:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
Why do conservatives have such a hard on for a guy who sold weapons to Iran?
It was different then. You weren't there, man.
Yes, breaking the law wasn't so illegal then.
No shit.
So, is some kind of Omerta thing, where he takes the fall for the God-King and the GOP doesn't have to face another President resign or face impeachment?
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock 24 days and counting. :P
If all else fails then maybe we can sent Ollie North over there. Maybe his Iranian friends will remember him.
I agree with Todd. If Obama's beaten in the House, the Obama administration is basically through barring a miraculous capture of the House in '14 (not happening). Are the Dems really willing to throw away the next three years by helping the Tea Party vote this down?
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20357154-first-thoughts-obamas-tough-challenge-ahead?lite
QuoteFirst Thoughts: Obama's tough challenge ahead
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
President Obama responds to NBC News' Chuck Todd's question about whether or not he asked for an expanded list of targets in Syria, saying, "That report is inaccurate ... what we have consistently talked about is something limited and proportionate that would degrade Assad's capabilities."
*** Obama's tough challenge ahead: What started out as the Obama White House's promising start to win Capitol Hill support for military strikes in Syria (getting congressional leaders like John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi on board, as well as the pro-Israel group AIPAC) has hit a brick wall of opposition. An unusual alliance of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans has come out against intervention; the polls show that the public is deeply skeptical about military action; and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who voted for authorization out of committee, faced tough questions at an Arizona town hall yesterday. What's more, President Obama went into the G-20 without additional support for intervention, and he leaves the G-20 without additional support. This all sets up a situation in which the Obama administration and its allies have 96 hours to change the momentum if they're going to get Congress to pass an authorization approving limited action in Syria. Does Obama address the nation next week to better sell this to the public and their representatives? (Only way he doesn't is if the White House abruptly decides Congress is a lost cause.) Does his challenge get easier -- or harder -- when most members actually return to Washington next week? (The White House hopes it gets easier.) Does the administration start making the argument to its members what might happen in the budget/debt-ceiling fights if the authorization goes down to defeat? (This is a semi-desperation move behind the scenes, but they may have no choice). We'll find out. But right now, the administration is losing.
President Obama says a majority of the G20 leaders believe Bashar al-Assad launched chemical weapons, but are divided on whether to use force in Syria without UN Security Council support.
*** What happens to Obama if this goes down: If the Obama administration loses, many might not realize the full-fledged political crisis the president will face. His congressional opposition will be more emboldened, if that was possible. (Any advantage the Democrats hold in the upcoming fiscal fights ahead could quickly disappear.) A year before the 2014 midterms, Democrats will start hitting the panic button with a wounded Democratic president in office. (If you've paid attention to politics over the past two decades, when the going gets tough, Democrats often jump ship.) And any lame-duck status for Obama would be expedited. (After all, a "no" vote by Congress would rebuke the nation's commander-in-chief.) Up until now, the first nine months of Obama's second term have been, well, a disappointment. Gun control was stopped in the Senate; immigration reform is stalled in the House; no progress has been achieved in the budget talks. So if you throw in Congress rebuking the president from taking military action in Syria -- something he has said is necessary -- that would be a huge political blow to Obama's political standing.
*** 96 hours to turn this thing around: Despite the administration's obvious challenge ahead, take all the whip counts with a grain of salt -- at least right now. There are too many undecided members, and remember that those "leaning" a particular way can change their minds. There is still time for Obama and his allies to turn this thing around. But here's something to consider: If it looks like a congressional authorization would go down to defeat, it might not reach the House floor. Why would members want to cast a vote on something that isn't going to pass? Interestingly, the problem the president faced at the G-20 is similar to the one he faces in Congress. Even with the folks who agree that Syria's regime needs to be punished, there just isn't the POLITICAL WILL to go out on that limb. Germany is no more there than member of Congress representing Staten Island. Call it Iraq War syndrome or whatever you want, but that's what's missing -- political will. Finally, the president has one additional challenge: convincing potential supporters of action that his middle ground approach (strikes without trying to alter the civil war) just doesn't come across as feasible. In hindsight, would the president's call for action be more credible if he had a clearer objective in mind (like Assad's removal or securing/capturing his chemical weapons stockpile)? Obviously, the military challenge to achieving those goals would be costly, but it seems the middle-ground military approach has become a tough sell.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2013, 07:09:47 PM
So, is some kind of Omerta thing, where he takes the fall for the God-King and the GOP doesn't have to face another President resign or face impeachment?
I dunno, Raz. It was long ago. So long ago...
QuotePetraeus calls on Congress to back White House on Syria
By: Mike Allen and Jennifer Epstein
September 7, 2013 03:52 PM EDT
Retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, former CIA director under President Barack Obama, called strongly Saturday for Congress to back the White House on Syria, declaring that military action against the regime is "necessary" to deter "Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors."
"Failure of Congress to approve the president's request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world," Petraeus said in a four-sentence statement provided to POLITICO.
With Congress set to return from summer break on Monday, Obama's request is in trouble in the Senate and on a path to an embarrassing loss in the House. He will sit for interviews Monday with six TV networks as he makes his case for military intervention in Syria ahead of an address to the nation on Tuesday.
In his years as U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus was regarded by many Republican lawmakers as a god on military matters.
So the imprimatur of the former four-star general could help Obama woo skeptical Republicans, many of whom say their districts are overwhelmingly opposed to intervention. The Petraeus statement follows endorsements of Obama's measure this week by Hillary Clinton, his first secretary of State; and Robert M. Gates, his first secretary of defense and a holdover from President George W. Bush.
The full text of Petraeus' statement: "I strongly support congressional approval of President Obama's request for authority to undertake military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad. Such action is necessary in order to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and to degrade the regime's overall military capabilities.
"Failure of Congress to approve the president's request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world. Military action against the Syrian regime is, thus, necessary not just to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, but also to ensure that Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors never underestimate the United States' resolve to take necessary military action when other tools prove insufficient."
As part of a multi-pronged push to sell his plan to Congress and the public, Obama will tape interviews Monday afternoon with anchors from ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News, the White House said. The interviews will air Monday evening.
The interviews will be conducted by ABC's Diane Sawyer, CBS's Scott Pelley, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Fox's Chris Wallace, NBC's Brian Williams and PBS's Gwen Ifill.
On Wednesday, Petraeus will give his first paid speech since resigning as CIA director in November. It'll be at Duke University and is titled, "America and the World: A Conversation with Gen. David Petraeus." Petraeus is working with six veterans' support groups, and is chairman of the newly created KKR Global Institute for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. He also is teaching this fall at the University of Southern California, and beginning Monday at the City University of New York.
Why is this America's problem again?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 08, 2013, 11:39:36 PM
Why is this America's problem again?
QuoteFailure of Congress to approve the president's request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world. Military action against the Syrian regime is, thus, necessary not just to deter future use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere, but also to ensure that Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors never underestimate the United States' resolve to take necessary military action when other tools prove insufficient."
It's a matter of face.
I don't see it.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 08, 2013, 11:39:36 PM
Why is this America's problem again?
It's actually everybody's problem.
McCain is threatening the President with impeachment, apparently unaware that the Senate can't impeach the President.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2013, 02:37:02 AM
McCain is threatening the President with impeachment,
At least one of you is crazy. Possibly both.
This Sitzkrieg bores me.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2013, 06:20:23 AM
This Sitzkrieg bores me.
Well, you're the expert on the subject Gimpy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2013, 06:30:36 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2013, 06:20:23 AM
This Sitzkrieg bores me.
Well, you're the expert on the subject Gimpy.
You are cordially invited to eat shit and die cancer stick.
Do the world a favor and get hit by a bus.
:o Why so serious?
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2013, 06:20:23 AM
This Sitzkrieg bores me.
If you experience an anticipated erection for more than 2 weeks consult your doctor
What a mess this entire response has been.
If Obama felt a strike was necessary, it should have been done long ago.
This is the worst waffling in foreign policy I can recall in a very long time.
Christ, what could be worse than asking for permission to do something you intend to do whether you get permission or not?
Black presidents like waffles.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
What a mess this entire response has been.
If Obama felt a strike was necessary, it should have been done long ago.
This is the worst waffling in foreign policy I can recall in a very long time.
Christ, what could be worse than asking for permission to do something you intend to do whether you get permission or not?
It has turned out pretty badly.
But the only thing that surprises me more than the Administration's ability to screw this up is the wholesale rejection of liberal humanitarian interventionism based on such a widely regarded international no-no as chemical weapons, which has been such an ingrained part of our national identity in foreign policy. And not just with us domestically, but with most of the world.
Bad things, man.
Yea there is little point in any action short of regime change at this point.
He made this move to preserve his rule and so long as he succeeds in that I doubt he cares if a couple more buildings get blown up.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
Christ, what could be worse than asking for permission to do something you intend to do whether you get permission or not?
Agreed.
I read an interesting analysis over the weekend, in the context of Parliamentary Democracies, that the recent trend in Canada and the UK to go to Parliament to obtain approval of the Prime Ministers wish to engage in military activities diminishes the roles of both the executive and the legislative.
The curbing of the power of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are obvious is the Parliament does not support what they wish to do. But the interesting bit is the view that if Parliament does approve the action then it also loses some of its authority (even it is moral authority) to question the actions of the Prime Minister because after all Parliament approved it.
It has become a tactic for the executive to minimize the political risk of making the hard choices. But as we have seen it also means that hard choices might not be made at all or at least deflected back onto Parliament which doesnt have that roll in the first place.
I am not sure to what extent this kind of analysis as any validity in the American model. It may be that the President requires approval of the legilslature whereas a PM does not.
My offer to give Asma Assad sanctuary in my basement stands.
My dutch oven is the nastiest gas of all gasses.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 09, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
But the only thing that surprises me more than the Administration's ability to screw this up is the wholesale rejection of liberal humanitarian interventionism based on such a widely regarded international no-no as chemical weapons, which has been such an ingrained part of our national identity in foreign policy. And not just with us domestically, but with most of the world.
Bad things, man.
The intervention in Afganistan has shown us that years of intervention with the best of intentions can still end poorly. Iraq demonstrated that intervention without a reasonable plan about what to do next can be disasterous.
And Russia swoops in to prove that they're the ones who can handle the situation, and that it can all be done diplomatically.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
QuoteSyria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons
Were I paranoid, I would think the whole thing was orchestrated by Moscow: Inofficially greenlight chem weapon use to Assad, telling him that Russia will do anything to prevent U.S. intervention. Lots of waffling ensues; Western democracies fail their resolve dice rolls. Moscow comes in to save the day and prove who really has the power in the region.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
The intervention in Afganistan has shown us that years of intervention with the best of intentions can still end poorly. Iraq demonstrated that intervention without a reasonable plan about what to do next can be disasterous.
Afghanistan didn't start out as intervention; it started out as payback. Then mission creep set in. It never should've gotten that far.
Iraq wasn't an intervention, either; it was an outright invasion and occupation. If you want to poo-poo humanitarian interventions, poo-poo Somalia.
And I disagree with Max that the only option left is regime change; in this particular scenario, the use of punitive measures for bad behavior can hit Assad in his wallet by degrading his very pricey military assets, such as air defense, aircraft, airfields and SSM facilities. Assad needs to learn that using chemical weapons comes with a price tag. There is still a cost-benefit dynamic here at work that will not interject us into the middle of the civil war. We punished Iraq for years with Northern Watch/Southern Watch very effectively, proving to him that his actions against rebellious factions came with a price, and that price wound up more than what he was willing to pay in conventional assets.
We can hit him, hit him hard, and get the message across that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, and to the point that the cost of using them far outweighs the benefits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 09, 2013, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
The intervention in Afganistan has shown us that years of intervention with the best of intentions can still end poorly. Iraq demonstrated that intervention without a reasonable plan about what to do next can be disasterous.
Afghanistan didn't start out as intervention; it started out as payback. Then mission creep set in. It never should've gotten that far.
I dont think you are correct about that. Armed forces were sent to help the Northern alliance remove the Taliban from power. It worked. The mission creep set in for exactly the reasons were are now wary of well intentioned intervention.
QuoteIraq wasn't an intervention, either; it was an outright invasion and occupation. If you want to poo-poo humanitarian interventions, poo-poo Somalia.
Yes, but the fantasy the US government of the day was that they just had to win a quick war and then roses would be thrown at them as liberators by an adoring civilian population. Which is again why we are now very wary of getting involved militarily without an end game in mind.
And of course we dont have to mention the problem of getting involved militarily without clear objectives - Vietnam.
QuoteAnd I disagree with Max that the only option left is regime change; in this particular scenario, the use of punitive measures for bad behavior can hit Assad in his wallet by degrading his very pricey military assets, such as air defense, aircraft, airfields and SSM facilities. Assad needs to learn that using chemical weapons comes with a price tag. There is still a cost-benefit dynamic here at work that will not interject us into the middle of the civil war. We punished Iraq for years with Northern Watch/Southern Watch very effectively, proving to him that his actions against rebellious factions came with a price, and that price wound up more than what he was willing to pay in conventional assets.
We can hit him, hit him hard, and get the message across that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, and to the point that the cost of using them far outweighs the benefits.
I agree with you on these points. I was trying to point out why people are wary that it wont be that simple.
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2013, 12:18:55 PM
He made this move to preserve his rule and so long as he succeeds in that I doubt he cares if a couple more buildings get blown up.
...but enough about Obama ;)
Considering that this is his biggest blunder yet, that doesn't really work.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 09, 2013, 12:35:59 PM
Afghanistan didn't start out as intervention; it started out as payback. Then mission creep set in. It never should've gotten that far.
I dont think you are correct about that. Armed forces were sent to help the Northern alliance remove the Taliban from power. It worked. The mission creep set in for exactly the reasons were are now wary of well intentioned intervention.
You're both correct. Except for the part where you said he wasn't :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2013, 12:08:53 PM
What a mess this entire response has been.
If Obama felt a strike was necessary, it should have been done long ago.
This is the worst waffling in foreign policy I can recall in a very long time.
Christ, what could be worse than asking for permission to do something you intend to do whether you get permission or not?
I think you're missing the hidden genius of Obama's plan. Unfortunately, so am I. :hmm:
Crouching retard?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 01:20:31 PM
I dont think you are correct about that. Armed forces were sent to help the Northern alliance remove the Taliban from power. It worked. The mission creep set in for exactly the reasons were are now wary of well intentioned intervention.
Offensive operations were conducted against the Taliban due to their aiding and abetting of Al Qaeda. We worked with the NA to the extent that we needed to accomplish that, and the political decision was made to work with the indigenous noodleheads to assist in anti-AQ operations, not for the express purpose of regime change. Working with Karzai and Kabul was eventually necessary in keeping a lid on AQ, but creating a new Afghani government was not the original goal in October 2001.
QuoteYes, but the fantasy the US government of the day was that they just had to win a quick war and then roses would be thrown at them as liberators by an adoring civilian population. Which is again why we are now very wary of getting involved militarily without an end game in mind.
And of course we dont have to mention the problem of getting involved militarily without clear objectives - Vietnam.
The current US government is not the government that invaded Iraq, and Syria is not Iraq. And there is a specific endgame involved in punitive strikes: the punitive strikes themselves.
And as far as Vietnam goes, might as well bring up Korea or the Jewish Revolt of 71AD. Getting involved even with clear objectives doesn't change the fact that objectives change, or unforeseen circumstances occur. That's not an excuse for inaction, and certainly not an excuse for inaction by The Indispensable Nation.
QuoteAnd I disagree with Max that the only option left is regime change; in this particular scenario, the use of punitive measures for bad behavior can hit Assad in his wallet by degrading his very pricey military assets, such as air defense, aircraft, airfields and SSM facilities. Assad needs to learn that using chemical weapons comes with a price tag. There is still a cost-benefit dynamic here at work that will not interject us into the middle of the civil war. We punished Iraq for years with Northern Watch/Southern Watch very effectively, proving to him that his actions against rebellious factions came with a price, and that price wound up more than what he was willing to pay in conventional assets.
We can hit him, hit him hard, and get the message across that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, and to the point that the cost of using them far outweighs the benefits.
QuoteI agree with you on these points. I was trying to point out why people are wary that it wont be that simple.
Good. Let's start bombing some expensive Russian-made shit over there. OH FUCK WHO THE HELL JUST LET THE RUSSIANS TAKE CHARGE OF THIS CRISIS SON OF A
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftigertailfoods.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F12%2FPutin-Buffy.jpg&hash=ea7a4699f7b99a8c33ccf90329b329defaeef761)
How could you not trust this man?
He needs a tougher-looking dog than that. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
He needs a tougher-looking dog than that. :rolleyes:
How about this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogguide.net%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2F610x.jpg&hash=a13807f0907d8b5194852a55c27942362cb0081d)
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
He needs a tougher-looking dog than that. :rolleyes:
It was a gift from the Bulgarians.
It's nice to see that it's not just the White House sending mixed messages to the Muddled East.
QuoteHere's Michele Bachmann thanking the Egyptian military for the coup and crackdowns
By Max Fisher, Updated: September 7, 2013
Three U.S. lawmakers who have generated controversy for their statements about Islam and Muslim Americans released a video Saturday praising the Egyptian military and thanking it for staging the July 3 and subsequent crackdowns against their "common enemy," the Muslim Brotherhood. The video, apparently taken a few hours after meeting with coup leader General Abdel Fatah el-Sissi in Cairo, features Rep. Michele Bachmann reading a statement to the camera. She's flanked by Reps. Steve King and Louie Gohmert.
The video, posted below, is a doozy. Bachmann, presumably supported by King and Gohmert, offers fulsome praise for the coup and the military-led government's subsequent actions, describing its crackdowns against sit-ins and demonstrations as "the front lines" in "the war on terrorism." She described the Muslim Brotherhood as a common enemy and a "great evil," implying that it had been responsible for the attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. King and Gohmert offered similar but more tempered remarks.
"Together, our country, the United States and Egypt have dealt with the same enemy. It's a common enemy," Bachmann said, apparently conflating Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a political organization that renounced violence decades ago and has millions of supporters in the country, with extremist terrorists. "It's an enemy called terrorism. Now the people of Egypt have spoken."
Bachmann's remarks appeared deeply consistent with Egyptian state propaganda that has portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as a secret terrorist organization and an internal enemy. These claims have not been backed up elsewhere; civilians killed in crackdowns such as the Aug. 14 attack on a Rabaa al-Awadiya sit-in, which left over 500 dead, appear to have been almost uniformly unarmed.
"I want to assure the people of Egypt that I, as a member of Congress, will stand strong in support of continuing military support, United States support financially, to stand for the military in Egypt," she said. "We know that you have been a partner. You've been a partner in the war on terrorism. You've acted bravely here on the front lines."
She added, "Many of you have asked, Do we understand who the enemy is? We can speak for ourselves: We do. We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed, here, for the people of Egypt. We've seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood posed around the world. We stand against this great evil. We remember who caused nine-one-one in America." Later, in response to a question, Bachmann reiterated: "We don't have a choice. They must be defeated."
King and Gohmert offered unconditional praise as well, albeit in more measured tones. King congratulated anti-Morsi Egyptians on "standing up for liberty, standing up for freedom" in supporting the July 3 coup. He added, "We stand against the Muslim Brotherhood. The American people do not support the Muslim Brotherhood, we oppose all forms of terror and terrorism." Gohmert compared el-Sissi to George Washington and said the "bloodthirsty Muslim Brothers" want to "destabilize things" and seek "that large caliphate." (He also said that Egyptian Jews participated in the anti-Morsi movements, which I would find surprising.)
Just as jarring as the trio's apparent endorsement of the coup and crackdowns that killed hundreds is their apparent optimism about what this means for the country's future. While many were skeptical of Morsi, an Islamist who governed poorly and failed the economy, military rule has seen widespread state violence that has killed hundreds of civilians and a rapid rollback of the country's meager democratic advances. Some small fraction of Egypt-watchers did hold cautious optimism in the days immediately after the coup. But virtually none see the past two months as anything short of a complete disaster, with not just the Egyptian state but society badly broken in ways that could take years to fix.
I just don't know who Bachmann, King and Gohmert are talking to who would characterize what's happened in Egypt with the glowing terms and unmitigated praise they've used. Bachmann promised "more freedom, more prosperity and more jobs" were coming. Gohmert exclaimed, "This is a good time."
Link to the video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/07/heres-michele-bachmann-thanking-the-egyptian-military-for-the-coup-and-crackdowns/
Those three goofs shouldn't be allowed out of their rubber rooms.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
He needs a tougher-looking dog than that. :rolleyes:
The dog is dead. Putin shot it the neck then stuffed it. That's why it has those weird eyes.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
How about this:
I was thinking more like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogster.com%2Ffiles%2Fattack-Rottweiler.jpg&hash=1eaee1669f8f85e8a2778c480f29e2046f415bb0)
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2013, 08:43:32 PM
It was a gift from the Bulgarians.
When did they go soft? :(
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
He needs a tougher-looking dog than that. :rolleyes:
How about this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogguide.net%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2F610x.jpg&hash=a13807f0907d8b5194852a55c27942362cb0081d)
Quit picking on Angela Merkel. Honestly :rolleyes:
:XD: :lmfao:
I think Silvio used to have a crush on Angela. Or maybe he just flirts with anything that has a vagina. :hmm: