The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Soldati Senza Confini]

lol. You can't argue realpolitik and morality at the same time dear.

"Just because we allow people who are on our side to rape and murder and gas and torture to their hearts content, doesn't mean we're not upright champions of human rights who should be taken seriously when we complain about people who don't work for us doing it."

Sure you can.
You simultaneously recognize that what you can do is inherently limited by realpolitik while deciding to further your moral goals when feasible. That's not really contradictory. It means that morals are sometimes subordinated to realpolitik, yes, but it doesn't mean that you don't still have them or cannot make decisions founded in part or in whole by morals. It does require accepting that reality sucks and that one is often forced to make deals with devils (especially when there are even greater devils lurking that can only be vanquished with the help of some lesser devils), of course.

However, in this case, it does detract your credibility if you don't do it for the right reasons either.

If Obama is as honest as you think he is, and he does have something up his sleeve, then I will trust him. I don't need to know state secrets, just as long as he and others confirm which side is this whole thing tipping on - who made the chemical attacks in Syria, is the more important question. Who should we back, who should we make a mission to destroy is something that needs to be considered. If we topple another dictator who is keeping the floodgates of sectarianism closed then we have to deal with the mess, and people reacted to it badly in the Iraq affair.

[IshCong]

That's exactly what picking and choosing one's battles entails. Welcome to reality.

I'm saying that suggesting we cannot claim human rights violations as a reason for intervention because we haven't done that in literally every other case of human rights violations is absurd given the impossibility of the latter.

You can't have it both ways dear. There is a rather sizable difference between "We can't intervene everywhere, all the time." and "We're perfectly okay with grotesque human rights violations as long as the person committing them is working for us."

That's simply one factor which might decide where and when one can intervene. Becoming a renegade nation that lashes out at its allies is obviously disadvantageous and would make intervening in instances of human rights violations over the long term even more difficult than it already is. Since that's not desirable it follows that one must be more reluctant to address the human rights abuses by allies (especially allies who assist in curtailing human rights abuses elsewhere) with military action.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can't have it both ways dear. There is a rather sizable difference between "We can't intervene everywhere, all the time." and "We're perfectly okay with grotesque human rights violations as long as the person committing them is working for us."

That's simply one factor which might decide where and when one can intervene. Becoming a renegade nation that lashes out at its allies is obviously disadvantageous and would make intervening in instances of human rights violations over the long term even more difficult than it already is. Since that's not desirable it follows that one must be more reluctant to address the human rights abuses by allies (especially allies who assist in curtailing human rights abuses elsewhere) with military action.

Nobody is asking to intervene with military action either.

If anything, it is at least an acknowledgement of it. But as it is, the US hasn't done that a lot.

[IshCong]

Sure you can.
You simultaneously recognize that what you can do is inherently limited by realpolitik while deciding to further your moral goals when feasible. That's not really contradictory. It means that morals are sometimes subordinated to realpolitik, yes, but it doesn't mean that you don't still have them or cannot make decisions founded in part or in whole by morals. It does require accepting that reality sucks and that one is often forced to make deals with devils (especially when there are even greater devils lurking that can only be vanquished with the help of some lesser devils), of course.

However, in this case, it does detract your credibility if you don't do it for the right reasons either.

If Obama is as honest as you think he is, and he does have something up his sleeve, then I will trust him.

Let's be clear. I don't have an innate trust of government whenever they tell me something. I just don't see what Obama and all these members of Congress (including Republicans who tend to oppose whatever furthers Obama's interests) get by lying here, which makes me more disposed to think they're probably telling the truth.
It's not like we can go into Syria and steal all their oil. Or like we'll get a huge windfall of cash. Or even provide material gains to Obama or the Democrats domestically. If anything this has split the Democratic Party which Obama has a very good reason not to do. So why deliberately do so without some really good reason?

I mean, if someone could show me some hidden motive he might have that actually made sense and I could believe was worth the political risks he's facing right now, maybe I'd be more inclined to think something was up. But I've yet to see that.

I don't need to know state secrets, just as long as he and others confirm which side is this whole thing tipping on - who made the chemical attacks in Syria, is the more important question. Who should we back, who should we make a mission to destroy is something that needs to be considered. If we topple another dictator who is keeping the floodgates of sectarianism closed then we have to deal with the mess, and people reacted to it badly in the Iraq affair.

Right now it doesn't look like the plan is to march in and destroy/topple anyone so much as send a limited missile strike into Syria with the intent to send a message.

[IshCong]

Source time is now.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/7808- ... ng-against
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... syria.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-pau ... 87085.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 91833.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176001/ny ... z2eMOFmbO5

Your country's media is literally full of this topic lately. There are even more sources besides those. I just do not have the time to link to all of them.

Precisely one of those sources indicated what you said it did. One. That being the Politix/Wired link.
And even that one relied on an average to make its point, which, while nice, rather ignores the individual inconsistencies.
Like, if defense donations are what determines support or a lack thereof, why is John Barrasso (>$86k) voting No while Chris Coons (<$20k) votes Yes?
And even considering the averages it really looks like McCain's outlier swung things there pretty heavily.

[Costa Alegria]

Do we think that, instead of intervening, the US pressure Russia to stop sending military aid to Syria and put forwards a plan for a UN force to decommission Syrian chemical weapons and sanction them if they don't comply?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Do we think that, instead of intervening, the US pressure Russia to stop sending military aid to Syria and put forwards a plan for a UN force to decommission Syrian chemical weapons and sanction them if they don't comply?

This could be a very feasible alternative, however, Putin is not likely to be pressured into it.

[Alien Space Bats]

Quote me legislators who are saying that they're not sure that Assad attacked Ghouta. Go ahead: I'd especially love hearing of Democrats who say this, giving that Rush Limbaugh is sounding the conspiracy horn on the right (which might force a Red-State lawmaker or two to double back out of fear of being attacked on the air by The Great One).

Quote me evidence that says Assad attacked Ghouta.

No, you don't get to do that. You conveniently chopped the quote pyramid to hide your own lies:

On the contrary, Republican and Democratic lawmakers are even more skeptical than before after seeing the evidence...because there isn't any. It's clear the Administration has plans for war regardless of real evidence, but the question is who benefits from this move?

I call your bullshit, Vetalia: You're right there on record insisting that — AND I QUOTE: "Republican and Democratic lawmakers are even more skeptical than before after seeing the evidence...because there isn't any."

Bullshit. No Congressman or Senator that I know of has stood up and said, "I'm not convinced that these attacks were the work of Assad and his government," or words to that effect. No Congressman or Senator has stood up and said, "I have seen the 'evidence' furnished by the Administration, and I find it faulty (or fabricated)." You're talking out of your ass.

I called you on something you said, and you moved the goal posts. Now I expect you'll try and move them further, because I caught you cold in the act.

Politicians can say whatever the hell they want, but last time I checked they're not voting in favor of intervention by any stretch of the imagination. Accepting the party line and actually believing it are two different animals...and in the end, what difference does it make?

It makes one Hell of a difference. "I think you're lying," "I think you're mistaken," and "I agree that the thing you're upset about happened, but I don't agree with you on the solution," are all entirely different positions.

Also, if I might ask, why the hell are you so gung-ho to get involved in this situation despite zero evidence to support your position? You have no evidence to back up your position, you might as well admit it.

I believe the Administration on this; I did not believe the Bush Administration when it sang its song ten years ago, however, because it was pretty clear that they had an agenda that I don't believe the Obama Administration has (well, that and they were pretty poor liars). Oh, and as for evidence, it's in the satellite imagery and signal intercepts.

But you, what have you got going? You're just trying to play "cool kid", asserting that Obama is Bush III, which is unreconstructed horseshit. Bush lied, therefore no American can tell the truth. We're all fucking liars who lie about everything all the time, so fuck us all.

But this is the 21st Century internet, and if there's one thing you should have learned, it's this: Cool kids aren't anywhere near as cool as they think they are.

[Orcoa]

Quote me evidence that says Assad attacked Ghouta.

No, you don't get to do that. You conveniently chopped the quote pyramid to hide your own lies:

On the contrary, Republican and Democratic lawmakers are even more skeptical than before after seeing the evidence...because there isn't any. It's clear the Administration has plans for war regardless of real evidence, but the question is who benefits from this move?

I call your bullshit, Vetalia: You're right there on record insisting that — AND I QUOTE: "Republican and Democratic lawmakers are even more skeptical than before after seeing the evidence...because there isn't any."

Bullshit. No Congressman or Senator that I know of has stood up and said, "I'm not convinced that these attacks were the work of Assad and his government," or words to that effect. No Congressman or Senator has stood up and said, "I have seen the 'evidence' furnished by the Administration, and I find it faulty (or fabricated)." You're talking out of your ass.

I called you on something you said, and you moved the goal posts. Now I expect you'll try and move them further, because I caught you cold in the act.

Politicians can say whatever the hell they want, but last time I checked they're not voting in favor of intervention by any stretch of the imagination. Accepting the party line and actually believing it are two different animals...and in the end, what difference does it make?

It makes one Hell of a difference. "I think you're lying," "I think you're mistaken," and "I agree that the thing you're upset about happened, but I don't agree with you on the solution," are all entirely different positions.

Also, if I might ask, why the hell are you so gung-ho to get involved in this situation despite zero evidence to support your position? You have no evidence to back up your position, you might as well admit it.

I believe the Administration on this; I did not believe the Bush Administration when it sang its song ten years ago, however, because it was pretty clear that they had an agenda that I don't believe the Obama Administration has (well, that and they were pretty poor liars). Oh, and as for evidence, it's in the satellite imagery and signal intercepts.

But you, what have you got going? You're just trying to play "cool kid", asserting that Obama is Bush III, which is unreconstructed horseshit. Bush lied, therefore no American can tell the truth. We're all fucking liars who lie about everything all the time, so fuck us all.

But this is the 21st Century internet, and if there's one thing you should have learned, it's this: Cool kids aren't anywhere near as cool as they think they are.

You, ASB ,are awesome

[Alien Space Bats]

I think you're overreacting. Most Americans oppose the war. Obama isn't taking America into another war. This isn't a bad thing. You can, and should, challenge Republicans on voting rights. The SCOTUS decisions were abysmal. Challenge them! You don't need a foreign war to do so.

The mainstream media has already spun this into a make or break vote for Obama: "If he loses — and he will — then it's game over and he'd might as well resign," they're whispering — and that whisper is about to become a talking point on every news program, 24/7 . The Republicans, in turn, smell blood and are going to nose straight in like a pack of sharks: "No President has ever been denied war powers before. AMERICA DOESN'T TRUST OBAMA! AMERICA HATES OBAMA! OBAMA AND BIDEN NEED TO GO!!!! WE CAN'T WAIT UNTIL 2016 — GOP IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!!!

Maybe you didn't realize this, but the business Congress was supposed to take up upon returning from recess was the budget and the debt ceiling. October 1st marks the beginning of the fiscal year, and also the beginning of the individual mandate. All summer Republicans have been threatening to shut down the government, default on the debt, and push Wall Street over a cliff if they can't "defund" Obamacare. Sure, pundits can laugh and say, "The fools! They can't defund Obamacare — it's not discretionary spending!" Yet the truth is, they can.

All they have to do is stick to their guns and refuse any debt ceiling increase at all if that increase doesn't contain language repealing Obamacare. That's the hill they're getting ready to die on, and giving the President a black eye over Syria — one that allows them to call him a weakling and a loser — is just the shot of courage they need to pull their troops together for the battle that's to come.

These legislative battles often come down to public perception and popularity. In the fullness of time, this defeat wouldn't ordinarily matter; six months or a year down the road, it would be nothing. But a week before the showdown? It's going to have a huge political impact on the fight that really matters — the budget and the debt.

Nor do I think that Obama can spin things the way you suggest he can. Again, the idiots in the Fourth Estate have already screwed that pooch: I'm infuriated at how they've "interpreted" Obama's stand on Syria. In my eyes, he was going to ask Congress for approval all along, assertions that he didn't have to being standard issue White House language aimed at preserving Presidential authority under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1. Gathering allies before that moment is the standard and traditional way to prepare for that step, and so — up until Cameron got a black eye in the Commons — that was the program. Then the U.K. "went wobbly" and all further efforts at coalition-building collapsed, ending that phase in the build-up and taking us directly to authorization.

The idiot Press, of course, was "shocked" when Obama said that he would seek Congressional approval; but then, the Beltway media would be shocked to wake up on New Years Day to find the country watching football, because they're morons by training and mutual socialization. So what was Saturday's story? "Obama reverses himself, seeks Congressional authorization!" Horseshit. It's like saying, "Groom, bride reverse themselves on night before wedding, decide not to elope." It wasn't a reversal because it was always going to happen.

Then there was the absurdity of their "interpretation" of Obama's remarks on the "red line": "It's not my 'red line', it's the world's 'red line'." There, too, they went nuts: "Obama renounces own 'red line'!" Again, bullshit: The Presidents remarks were not an effort to say that he hadn't drawn a "red line" on chemical weapons use, but rather an effort to remind the world that the whole bit about chemical weapons is not the fixation of a single American President ("... my 'red line'..."), but rather a universal global position of many decades standing ("... the world's 'red line'..."). What was an attempt to remind a squeamish world of their principles was twisted into a "further" attempt at a retreat.

This is the Washington press corps at their "finest": Not only can they not get the story right to save their lives, but they will misinterpret all subsequent data to reinforce their story, however wrong. Thus, instead of the President being able to say, "I consulted with Congress because that's what Presidents are supposed to do," the twisted narrative — repeated here by many — is that the President blundered, embarrassed himself, and then used Congress as a life preserver to get him out of a jam.

That's a story that eliminates any possibility of turning this into a positive event, especially when the Beltway Press will never let it go. It's a story of weakness, fecklessness, lack of principle and moral character, and abject cowardice — and it fits in perfectly with the longstanding GOP objective of reducing all Democratic Presidents to Jimmy Carter.

And idiots say we have a liberal media in this country?

No, there's no way this isn't a fucking disaster.

[Alien Space Bats]

How? Does the government have a plan that is expedient and doesn't drag us into another decade of interventionism?

Yes:

1. Shoot off a bunch of missiles at extremely long range, blowing the ever-living shit out of the people who launched this attack and the people who gave them their orders.
   
   
2. Sail away.
   
   
3. Remind the next group of people who might get orders to gas civilians what happened to the last group of people who got such orders (HINT: Time to desert or defect, maybe?).

Since the Syrians can't exactly sail after us and invade America — and Iran doesn't want to lose what few air and naval assets they currently have — that pretty much ends things, save for Bashar al-Assad shaking his fist and calling us all sorts of nasty names (along with Vladimir Putin tut-tutting in the background).

Of course! Haven't you read the Resolution? It requires the US Government to achieve improbably goals in an impossible time frame. What could possibly go wrong?

And John McCain can go fucking choke on his words. Or maybe, like John Stewart suggested, he can resign and go play video poker full time while pretending he knows how to run a country, just like any other Arizona retiree.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How? Does the government have a plan that is expedient and doesn't drag us into another decade of interventionism?

Yes:

1. Shoot off a bunch of missiles at extremely long range, blowing the ever-living shit out of the people who launched this attack and the people who gave them their orders.
   
   
2. Sail away.
   
   
3. Remind the next group of people who might get orders to gas civilians what happened to the last group of people who got such orders (HINT: Time to desert or defect, maybe?).

Since the Syrians can't exactly sail after us and invade America — and Iran doesn't want to lose what few air and naval assets they currently have — that pretty much ends things, save for Bashar al-Assad shaking his fist and calling us all sorts of nasty names (along with Vladimir Putin tut-tutting in the background).

Nice work at making a strategy. However you do forget a simple fact:

What if an even more radical faction takes over and makes genocide instead of gassing? What will happen then? Will we just keep bombing Syria until it becomes an uninhabitable shithole and we get, hopefully, a faction that LOVES us because we left them a country in shambles?

[United Dependencies]

And idiots say we have a liberal media in this country?

No, there's no way this isn't a fucking disaster.

Don't forget the IRS "scandal".

The news media in this day and age disgusts me. They're more focused on breaking "The Big Story" than they are on reporting the news. I think this is rather dangerous behavior for our representative democracy.

[Alien Space Bats]

Nice work at making a strategy. However you do forget a simple fact:

What if an even more radical faction takes over and makes genocide instead of gassing? What will happen then? Will we just keep bombing Syria until it becomes an uninhabitable shithole and we get, hopefully, a faction that LOVES us because we left them a country in shambles?

Not... our ... problem.

<pause>

Did you notice that I proposed something very discrete and limited (as in "Fry the bastard division commander who ordered the gassing and his whole damned HQ, along with the artillery batteries that fired off the rockets that delivered the gas, so as to put the Fear of God™ into the next pack of jokers who might think it would be cool to do this?"). The rest of Assad's army is left to keep fighting, so we haven't affected the outcome of the civil war one damned bit. In fact, all we've done is make the very point we made back when we drew the "red line" in the first place: Using chemical weapons is bad, SO DON'T DO IT.

Besides, it's not like you're proposing anything to keep a bunch of genocidal bastards out of power, now is it?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nice work at making a strategy. However you do forget a simple fact:

What if an even more radical faction takes over and makes genocide instead of gassing? What will happen then? Will we just keep bombing Syria until it becomes an uninhabitable shithole and we get, hopefully, a faction that LOVES us because we left them a country in shambles?

Not... our ... problem.

<pause>

Did you notice that I proposed something very discrete and limited (as in "Fry the bastard division commander who ordered the gassing and his whole damned HQ, along with the artillery batteries that fired off the rockets that delivered the gas, so as to put the Fear of God™ into the next pack of jokers who might think it would be cool to do this?"). The rest of Assad's army is left to keep fighting, so we haven't affected the outcome of the civil war one damned bit. In fact, all we've done is make the very point we made back when we drew the "red line" in the first place: Using chemical weapons is bad, SO DON'T DO IT.

Besides, it's not like you're proposing anything to keep a bunch of genocidal bastards out of power, now is it?

No, but bombing the ever living shit out of a country, and then when it is in shambles we just go "not our issue, fuck you allies" and we just leave.

Also, can you point to me, in fact, who made the attacks?! No, you know why you can't? Because nobody will ever come up and say "HEY! I did it!" they will keep pointing fingers at each other and then what? Who do we pick?!

Also, your strategy sounds fairly similar to what we did in Latin America. "Oh fuck those wetbacks! They totally are not OUR problem, now is it? Let's just keep communism out of our hemisphere with these people. Oh you say they are dictatorial maniacs? But they are our allies so fuck them all" Now almost 75% of our OWN hemisphere hates us. Nice job at keeping things nice and clean at home, really, truly top shelf.

[Alien Space Bats]

Take a look at your own media. They have been revealing that the American officials voting in favour of war have been paid a larger amount in donations from such diasporas then those whom did not.

Didn't I already debunk this?

I want to see the contribution numbers. If you're not making shit up, I'm sure you'll have no problem using them to prove your point.

Source time is now.
I do remember coming across this while during one of my earlier skims (yes, skims, no, I have not read the entire thread up till now):

<hugs IshCong>

Thank you!

[Alien Space Bats]

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/7808-senators-voting-for-syria-strike-got-more-defense-cash-than-senators-voting-against
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... syria.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-pau ... 87085.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 91833.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176001/ny ... z2eMOFmbO5

Your country's media is literally full of this topic lately. There are even more sources besides those. I just do not have the time to link to all of them.

The third link is simply wrong. The head count is veering wildly away from authorization.

The second, fourth, and fifth links are irrelevant. AIPAC is going to get its ass whipped on this vote.

The first link is also largely irrelevant: It deals with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is just one body. The general relationship does not extend to the full membership of the House or Senate. Besides, causation is not correlation: I could probably find the same relationship between those who voted for authorization and the NRA, or the Trial Lawyers Association, realtors, Major League Baseball, or the Kiwanis Club...

[Occupied Deutschland]

Nice work at making a strategy. However you do forget a simple fact:

What if an even more radical faction takes over and makes genocide instead of gassing? What will happen then? Will we just keep bombing Syria until it becomes an uninhabitable shithole and we get, hopefully, a faction that LOVES us because we left them a country in shambles?

Not... our ... problem.

...

The mere fact of our intervention MAKES it our problem.

Whatever action we take, we affect the civil war, in terms of both men, morale and initiative. By weakening one side via exploding their artillery battalion we necessarily provide support to the opposing side. Now, in other instances this might not be problematic. When the other side (or, at the very least agents about as high-up as any arty commander on Assad's side who ordered the gas-attack would be (assuming Assad didn't give the order, which sounds like a crapshoot from the available intel us civilians have)) has shown itself perfectly willing to use similar chemical weapons attacks...just what point are we proving by bombing ASSAD'S side (especially considering the rebel usage in Aleppo in May I believe it was seems to be the first internationally confirmed usage and was done by rebel elements).

But getting back to my original point, by involving ourselves in the civil war we necessarily have to have some kind of hope for the playing out of that civil war, some kind of goal in mind. Lobbing a couple of missiles at some folks because they used chemical weapons doesn't cut it when we didn't suddenly jump at the same opportunity when it was presented against the other side. We lend implicit support (along with the actual physical support of, y'know, blowing up Assad's arty) by lobbing cruise missiles in. We can't, morally or politically, do so and then sail away.

I mean, if we're going to make a hardline badass motherfucker line on the usage of chemical weapons it has to be stronger than just some cruise missiles. If our intent is to put the fear of God into the dictators of the world, it's going to require more than just some cruise missiles. It's just enough to get us actively involved in the conflict without being the outstanding show of force which would accomplish the 'fear of God' objective.

Which is not even considering the wonderful adulation and praises I'm sure such an action would garner from the Middle East.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Nice work at making a strategy. However you do forget a simple fact:

What if an even more radical faction takes over and makes genocide instead of gassing? What will happen then? Will we just keep bombing Syria until it becomes an uninhabitable shithole and we get, hopefully, a faction that LOVES us because we left them a country in shambles?

Not... our ... problem.

<pause>

Did you notice that I proposed something very discrete and limited (as in "Fry the bastard division commander who ordered the gassing and his whole damned HQ, along with the artillery batteries that fired off the rockets that delivered the gas, so as to put the Fear of God™ into the next pack of jokers who might think it would be cool to do this?"). The rest of Assad's army is left to keep fighting, so we haven't affected the outcome of the civil war one damned bit. In fact, all we've done is make the very point we made back when we drew the "red line" in the first place: Using chemical weapons is bad, SO DON'T DO IT.

Besides, it's not like you're proposing anything to keep a bunch of genocidal bastards out of power, now is it?

The whole entire chemical "red line" is utterly useless, because as it turns out, no one has made one whence Israel dropped chemical weapons in Palestine, nor has there been condemnation towards the coalition's utilisation of white phosphorous & depleted uranium in Iraq on this similar level. (Which, by the way, has caused effects such as these to be incurred; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

And idiots say we have a liberal media in this country?

No, there's no way this isn't a fucking disaster.

Don't forget the IRS "scandal".

The news media in this day and age disgusts me. They're more focused on breaking "The Big Story" than they are on reporting the news. I think this is rather dangerous behavior for our representative democracy.

Thank you. Yes indeed, our current mass media serves only hyping, or interest groups of imperialist character, rather than the behaviour of truthful, ethical journalism. Indeed, it affects our shaky representative democracies in this sense, tonnes of it.

On a finalised note, this war in Syria is going to end Algeria style.

Warmongering media will fall silent, especially with increasing reports coming out confirming 100% that indeed it was the insurgents whom were committing a disproportionate majority (90%) of the atrocities, whilst from there the Syrian people will face the challenge of having to fight a low level war for several more years, just as Algeria is being forced to do, thanks to DGSE arming the al-Qaeda in Maghreb death squads back in the 1990s

[Alien Space Bats]

No, but bombing the ever living shit out of a country, and then when it is in shambles we just go "not our issue, fuck you allies" and we just leave.

Who is proposing that we "bomb the ever living shit" out of Syria?

Other than John McCain, that is...

Also, can you point to me, in fact, who made the attacks?! No, you know why you can't? Because nobody will ever come up and say "HEY! I did it!" they will keep pointing fingers at each other and then what? Who do we pick?!

We have signal intercepts in which a Syrian official is freaking out because a local commander unleashed gas on the neighborhood, and it's made the news. The local commander assures the official that a thorough shelling of the area with conventional ordnance should conceal the evidence.

Also, your strategy sounds fairly similar to what we did in Latin America. "Oh fuck those wetbacks! They totally are not OUR problem, now is it? Let's just keep communism out of our hemisphere with these people. Oh you say they are dictatorial maniacs? But they are our allies so fuck them all" Now almost 75% of our OWN hemisphere hates us. Nice job at keeping things nice and clean at home, really, truly top shelf.

How is my proposal functionally different from yours? It's not like you're proposing a way to end the civil war or guarantee that the "right" side wins it, is it?

[Alien Space Bats]

Lobbing a couple of missiles at some folks because they used chemical weapons doesn't cut it when we didn't suddenly jump at the same opportunity when it was presented against the other side. We lend implicit support (along with the actual physical support of, y'know, blowing up Assad's arty) by lobbing cruise missiles in. We can't, morally or politically, do so and then sail away.

My understanding is that we still don't know for sure who used chemicals a few months back, or even if they were used. But I'd be all in favor of assigning a Predator drone with a brace of Hellfire missiles to whatever bastard was responsible if we get proof that he was a rebel, sure.

I mean, if we're going to make a hardline badass motherfucker line on the usage of chemical weapons it has to be stronger than just some cruise missiles. If our intent is to put the fear of God into the dictators of the world, it's going to require more than just some cruise missiles. It's just enough to get us actively involved in the conflict without being the outstanding show of force which would accomplish the 'fear of God' objective.

We don't have to put the Fear of God™ into the hearts of the dictators who order chemical attacks.

We just have to put it into the hearts of the poor bastards who are ordered to do it, so that they refuse and either desert, defect, or mutiny. That should do the trick.

The whole entire chemical "red line" is utterly useless, because as it turns out, no one has made one whence Israel dropped chemical weapons in Palestine, nor has there been condemnation towards the coalition's utilisation of white phosphorous & depleted uranium in Iraq on this similar level. (Which, by the way, has caused effects such as these to be incurred; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary.

Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon. It's the material used to make a particular kind of kinetic anti-tank round.

I mean, what's next? Environmental lead from bullet fragments? Burning oil, lubricants, and plastics from destroyed vehicles? The use of unleaded fuel additives in military vehicles?

Oh, and a citation for Israeli use of chemical weapons in Palestine — and it had better not be tear gas, or I'm laughing you out of here.

[Shofercia]

Fris, did you see this?

Fuck it. Here it is again.

Cool it, I'm debating like eight people here, I'm doing my best.

This isn't about what's good for America, it's about what's good for the world. Even if this is an action against Russia, I can't say whether it is or not, protecting US Hegemony while hampering Russian Hegemony is good because Russia is a lot worse than the US.

Furthermore, we ought to topple regimes that commit flagrant warcrimes with no benefit for anyone.

Is consistency more important than doing the right thing now?

Russia's not a Hegemon in the Middle East. Now you can certainly complain about Russian Hegemony in the Caucasus, or in Central Asia, or, perhaps, with a huge grain of salt, in Eastern Europe or Latin America. But the Middle East? Are you fucking kidding me? Have you not been reading any of my posts? Once again: Russia say: "Syria, or we GTFO from the region. That's not something that a Hegemon would say.

Then again, saying "the World needs us over other countries, we're doing this for the World" just sounds laughable on its own. This isn't a guide to World Policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOEIruwzf54

1) I fail to see what else it could be seeing as the action being contemplated (as per the last I heard of it anyhow) was CRUISE MISSILE STRIKES on Assad-controlled targets. How exactly do cruise missiles keep Al Qaeda from taking the keys off of Bashar's dead body?

Unless we plan on just lobbing them perpetually over there until a government we like emerges?

2) Until this international intelligence you mention gets pointed out, it seems like the best standard presented yet.

Except for Kerry and Obama saying shit, but unnamed sources are better than the US President and Secretary of State.

Kerry, now that name sounds vaguely familiar, oh yeah: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 Posted: 12:04 AM EDT (0404 GMT)

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush. Bush's campaign has challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he stood by the October 2002 vote which gave Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The question of going to war in Iraq has become a major issue on the campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found there. Intelligence reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a major rationale for going to war. The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."

But he told reporters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions. "My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people? There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

Hey, I like those questions. So, John, and/or Barack, the American People deserve to know!

1. "Why are we rushing off to war before reading the UN's findings?"
2. "Why aren't you doing the hard work in finding proper intelligence that can persuade the American People to go to war against another Ba'athist Country in the Middle East?"
3. "Why are you not bringing other countries, at least most of NATO's firepower, to the table?"
4. "What is your exact exit strategy?"

Because, as this Kerry fellow said, and I quote:

"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

This is what I've been saying this whole time.

The whole "HUMIN RYTES" justification is bull, considering we've been ignoring all those human rights violations in Africa.

Why is Syria suddenly oh-so-important?

We can't save everyone, clearly we should save no-one. You serious?

No, he's asking "why Syria? Why so Syrias?" He's not saying that US shouldn't intervene in other places.

Do we think that, instead of intervening, the US pressure Russia to stop sending military aid to Syria and put forwards a plan for a UN force to decommission Syrian chemical weapons and sanction them if they don't comply?

Syria's worried that if they decommission their weapons, NATO will attack them. The leadership views chemical weapons as a deterrence to NATO's attack. If Russians were allowed to install an anti-missile net and run it, (these would be under UNSC,) that would ensure NATO's non-intervention, and then Syria could decommission the chemical weapons.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Lobbing a couple of missiles at some folks because they used chemical weapons doesn't cut it when we didn't suddenly jump at the same opportunity when it was presented against the other side. We lend implicit support (along with the actual physical support of, y'know, blowing up Assad's arty) by lobbing cruise missiles in. We can't, morally or politically, do so and then sail away.

My understanding is that we still don't know for sure who used chemicals a few months back, or even if they were used. But I'd be all in favor of assigning a Predator drone with a brace of Hellfire missiles to whatever bastard was responsible if we get proof that he was a rebel, sure.

I mean, if we're going to make a hardline badass motherfucker line on the usage of chemical weapons it has to be stronger than just some cruise missiles. If our intent is to put the fear of God into the dictators of the world, it's going to require more than just some cruise missiles. It's just enough to get us actively involved in the conflict without being the outstanding show of force which would accomplish the 'fear of God' objective.

We don't have to put the Fear of God™ into the hearts of the dictators who order chemical attacks.

We just have to put it into the hearts of the poor bastards who are ordered to do it, so that they refuse and either desert, defect, or mutiny. That should do the trick.

The whole entire chemical "red line" is utterly useless, because as it turns out, no one has made one whence Israel dropped chemical weapons in Palestine, nor has there been condemnation towards the coalition's utilisation of white phosphorous & depleted uranium in Iraq on this similar level. (Which, by the way, has caused effects such as these to be incurred; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary.

Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon. It's the material used to make a particular kind of kinetic anti-tank round.

I mean, what's next? Environmental lead from bullet fragments? Burning oil, lubricants, and plastics from destroyed vehicles? The use of unleaded fuel additives in military vehicles?

Oh, and a citation for Israeli use of chemical weapons in Palestine — and it had better not be tear gas, or I'm laughing you out of here.

You want your evidence, here it is:

Israeli bombings utilising such weapons over Palestine

https://login.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=h ... dleeast%2F
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7904929.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7838598.stm
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... cast-lead/

NATO bombing Libya with such weapons

http://www.algeria-isp.com/actualites/p ... -2011.html

Houthis being bombed with Saudi white phosphorous

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=11 ... =351020206

White phosphorous despite being an incendiary round as you say, is nonetheless toxic as well as bloody vile to those exposed to this chemical. This is one of many sources that reinforce this argument: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1

[Shofercia]

I think you're overreacting. Most Americans oppose the war. Obama isn't taking America into another war. This isn't a bad thing. You can, and should, challenge Republicans on voting rights. The SCOTUS decisions were abysmal. Challenge them! You don't need a foreign war to do so.

The mainstream media has already spun this into a make or break vote for Obama: "If he loses — and he will — then it's game over and he'd might as well resign," they're whispering — and that whisper is about to become a talking point on every news program, 24/7 . The Republicans, in turn, smell blood and are going to nose straight in like a pack of sharks: "No President has ever been denied war powers before. AMERICA DOESN'T TRUST OBAMA! AMERICA HATES OBAMA! OBAMA AND BIDEN NEED TO GO!!!! WE CAN'T WAIT UNTIL 2016 — GOP IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!!!

And Dems can fight back. "Obama asked Congress, Congress asked the people, the people said no, and Obama is here to represent the American People! When the people disagree with the President, he does what the people say, how many Presidents do that?" Also, quite a few Americans don't trust mass media. Quite a few students don't want Obama to go to war. All Obama needs to say is "we must prioritize our education funding, before going off to war", and he'll have the students on his side. And the parents. The mass media, was that the same one that was predicted a tight race between Obama and Romney, when I said that Obama wins without Florida and/or Ohio in August? It's all about how you frame the issue. Shift the debate towards education, away from the Middle East, and then what will Republicans do? Deny climate change? Let them!

Maybe you didn't realize this, but the business Congress was supposed to take up upon returning from recess was the budget and the debt ceiling. October 1st marks the beginning of the fiscal year, and also the beginning of the individual mandate. All summer Republicans have been threatening to shut down the government, default on the debt, and push Wall Street over a cliff if they can't "defund" Obamacare. Sure, pundits can laugh and say, "The fools! They can't defund Obamacare — it's not discretionary spending!" Yet the truth is, they can.

All they have to do is stick to their guns and refuse any debt ceiling increase at all if that increase doesn't contain language repealing Obamacare. That's the hill they're getting ready to die on, and giving the President a black eye over Syria — one that allows them to call him a weakling and a loser — is just the shot of courage they need to pull their troops together for the battle that's to come.

These legislative battles often come down to public perception and popularity. In the fullness of time, this defeat wouldn't ordinarily matter; six months or a year down the road, it would be nothing. But a week before the showdown? It's going to have a huge political impact on the fight that really matters — the budget and the debt.

Nor do I think that Obama can spin things the way you suggest he can. Again, the idiots in the Fourth Estate have already screwed that pooch: I'm infuriated at how they've "interpreted" Obama's stand on Syria. In my eyes, he was going to ask Congress for approval all along, assertions that he didn't have to being standard issue White House language aimed at preserving Presidential authority under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1. Gathering allies before that moment is the standard and traditional way to prepare for that step, and so — up until Cameron got a black eye in the Commons — that was the program. Then the U.K. "went wobbly" and all further efforts at coalition-building collapsed, ending that phase in the build-up and taking us directly to authorization.

The idiot Press, of course, was "shocked" when Obama said that he would seek Congressional approval; but then, the Beltway media would be shocked to wake up on New Years Day to find the country watching football, because they're morons by training and mutual socialization. So what was Saturday's story? "Obama reverses himself, seeks Congressional authorization!" Horseshit. It's like saying, "Groom, bride reverse themselves on night before wedding, decide not to elope." It wasn't a reversal because it was always going to happen.

Then there was the absurdity of their "interpretation" of Obama's remarks on the "red line": "It's not my 'red line', it's the world's 'red line'." There, too, they went nuts: "Obama renounces own 'red line'!" Again, bullshit: The Presidents remarks were not an effort to say that he hadn't drawn a "red line" on chemical weapons use, but rather an effort to remind the world that the whole bit about chemical weapons is not the fixation of a single American President ("... my 'red line'..."), but rather a universal global position of many decades standing ("... the world's 'red line'..."). What was an attempt to remind a squeamish world of their principles was twisted into a "further" attempt at a retreat.

This is the Washington press corps at their "finest": Not only can they not get the story right to save their lives, but they will misinterpret all subsequent data to reinforce their story, however wrong. Thus, instead of the President being able to say, "I consulted with Congress because that's what Presidents are supposed to do," the twisted narrative — repeated here by many — is that the President blundered, embarrassed himself, and then used Congress as a life preserver to get him out of a jam.

That's a story that eliminates any possibility of turning this into a positive event, especially when the Beltway Press will never let it go. It's a story of weakness, fecklessness, lack of principle and moral character, and abject cowardice — and it fits in perfectly with the longstanding GOP objective of reducing all Democratic Presidents to Jimmy Carter.

And idiots say we have a liberal media in this country?

No, there's no way this isn't a fucking disaster.

Deep breath ASB. Another one. Ok, now I can respond. Remember the Ossetian PR War? Where every single damn thing was geared against Russia? If you think the anti-Obama spin is ridiculous, let me give an example of those spins:

Actual military report: Georgia attacks, up to 2000 civilians casualties, dead or missing
Russian spin: Georgia attacks, up to 2000 dead
CNN's spin: Russia attacks Georgia, 2000 civilian casualties result
Blogger's spin: Russia's killing civilians by the thousands!!!

And let's look at it today: we know who started the war, we know that Russia benefited long term, (winners of Just Wars tend to benefit,) and we know that the whole anti-Russian PR Crusade was tossed to shit. How? Bloggers, editors, journalists, or just people, like yours truly, fighting against the asinine bullshit. The losers? CNN/Fox News. Oh, and Saakashvili, but he was born a loser. Obama can do the same to the dunce pundits, if he makes education the focus. And the dunces in the press will fall for it. An example:

Dunce Pundit: "in the wake of Obama's Syria's Disaster, and Congress' refusal to declare war, Obama shifts focus to education!"
American Public: "how's this a bad thing?"

Remember YGO? Remember his "Obama Leaves Child Behind" thread? Remember just how badly that backfired? Same thing here. Same exact process.

We, well at least Californians, expect the politicians to fuck shit up! We do! We don't have high standards. Brown's going down because he fucked with the Proposition Process, and that's one of the things you cannot fuck with in California. What's Obama's fuck up? Failed to rally World Support again X nation in the Middle East? So what? This is like Schwartzie's failure to rally Californians against Sacramento. He went on to win the 2006 election. Yes, the pundits are going to scream. Let them. And then focus the debate on education.

[IshCong]

My understanding is that we still don't know for sure who used chemicals a few months back, or even if they were used. But I'd be all in favor of assigning a Predator drone with a brace of Hellfire missiles to whatever bastard was responsible if we get proof that he was a rebel, sure.


We don't have to put the Fear of God™ into the hearts of the dictators who order chemical attacks.

We just have to put it into the hearts of the poor bastards who are ordered to do it, so that they refuse and either desert, defect, or mutiny. That should do the trick.


White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary.

Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon. It's the material used to make a particular kind of kinetic anti-tank round.

I mean, what's next? Environmental lead from bullet fragments? Burning oil, lubricants, and plastics from destroyed vehicles? The use of unleaded fuel additives in military vehicles?

Oh, and a citation for Israeli use of chemical weapons in Palestine — and it had better not be tear gas, or I'm laughing you out of here.

You want your evidence, here it is:

Israeli bombings utilising such weapons over Palestine

https://login.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=h ... dleeast%2F
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7904929.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7838598.stm
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... cast-lead/

NATO bombing Libya with such weapons

http://www.algeria-isp.com/actualites/p ... -2011.html

Houthis being bombed with Saudi white phosphorous

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=11 ... =351020206

White phosphorous despite being an incendiary round as you say, is nonetheless toxic as well as bloody vile to those exposed to this chemical. This is one of many sources that reinforce this argument: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1

I see we're confusing incendiary/smoke producing things with neurotoxins.
That, or we're honestly suggesting that incendiary/smoke producing things are similar to neurotoxins.
Either way, I think I'm laughing you out of here too.

(Bonus points on DU: The alternative usually proposed? Tungsten. Know why DU's bad? It's a heavy metal. Know what tungsten is? A heavy metal. If DU didn't have teh ebil uruneyumz in it I doubt there'd be any substantive opposition to it.)