Syria

[Skyrad 0]

mpohl

Furthermore, there will be no UN resolution. Remember the last one: WMD, Iraq?

The US has lost all credibility.

Absent of a UN resolution, it will be a unilateral action...or a war of aggression. With the US being the aggressor.

***If the US takes action, at least in the near term, there won't be any boots on the ground or pilots over head. No Americans will be flown home in body bags.

A few robots might get scuffed up, but I don't think they count.

I should also point out this won't be a unilateral action. It will have the support of a number of other countries who also get bent out of shape when governments decide to commit chemical warfare against their own people.

I don't think theWMD issue comes into it, but you are right it would be an illegal act of war without the sanction of the UN. China and Russia would veto any UN involvement at the security council.

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

[Skyrad 0]

quade

***Right now, nobody knows who used what. Was it the rebels, was it the government?

The currently line of thinking by a number of analysts is the rebels didn't have access and the government most certainly does. Further, it appears the chemicals were delivered by rockets which points further to the government.

We're currently doing the checks on it.

Quote

But ultimately, it is something the Syrian people have to deal with amongst themselves. It is none of the US business. That simple!!!!

Nope. If any government in the world begins genocide it is the business of the entire human race to stop it. The US just happens to have the capabilities.

While I agree with the sentiment the reality is that intervention by the USA would almost certainly be illegal and most likely result in the blockage of the Straits of Hormuz, with Russia backing Iran who are warning the USA over involvement in Syria. China is also a keen ally of Iran. The reality is that any military involvement is playing with the potential trigger of WWIII.

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

jclalor

***http://www.france24.com/en/20130825-syria-chemical-attack-evidence-may-have-been-destroyed-hague

Nope.

Sit back and savor the moment, it appears I was momentarily wrong. Of course the highly political group Doctors Without Borders has witnessed hundreds of dead and dying from a neuro agent.

We also "knew" Saddam had chemical weapons because we sold them to him. It's also very likely that they were destroyed during Desert Shield.

I don't doubt that Syria has them nor do I have much doubt they used them recently. I just couldn't resist taking a poke at you.

For the record, I hope we don't get involved at all. Both side hate us and I really don't care anymore.

[Andy9o8 2]

Skyrad

******Right now, nobody knows who used what. Was it the rebels, was it the government?

The currently line of thinking by a number of analysts is the rebels didn't have access and the government most certainly does. Further, it appears the chemicals were delivered by rockets which points further to the government.

We're currently doing the checks on it.

Quote

But ultimately, it is something the Syrian people have to deal with amongst themselves. It is none of the US business. That simple!!!!

Nope. If any government in the world begins genocide it is the business of the entire human race to stop it. The US just happens to have the capabilities.

While I agree with the sentiment the reality is that intervention by the USA would almost certainly be illegal and most likely result in the blockage of the Straits of Hormuz, with Russia backing Iran who are warning the USA over involvement in Syria. China is also a keen ally of Iran. The reality is that any military involvement is playing with the potential trigger of WWIII.

You're getting bogged down on a very narrow, singular definition of "illegal" - one that any nation's rulers can hide behind enabling them to murder scores of thousands of their own citizens. And neither the Iranians nor the Russians are going to block the Straits of Hormuz over Syria.

What I find amazing is that the so-called "red line" (the US's? the EU's? the world's?) is defined not in the scope of how many of Syria's citizens Assad has killed, but merely the means. So as long as Assad uses conventional weapons to murder scores of thousands of people, that's not a threshhold, but if he uses chemical weapons to murder several hundred, that's what gets the world's attention.

[Gravitymaster 0]

How can you be sure that if chemical weapons have been used, that it was the Assad government? It could have been the MB, Hamas or even Al Qaeda or some other group.

[turtlespeed 221]

Gravitymaster

http://www.france24.com/en/20130825-syria-chemical-attack-evidence-may-have-been-destroyed-hague

Nope.

AH. So, if we do take action it would be OK since there WAS evidence, but it was destroyed.

Which is unlike what the congress approved, and signed off on, that is now called a war crime by those who back the guy that . . . is about to do the same thing.

Gotcha.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 221]

Gravitymaster

How can you be sure that if chemical weapons have been used, that it was the Assad government? It could have been the MB, Hamas or even Al Qaeda or some other group.

I think it was Poland that introduced the chem weapons (Covertly) with Bosnia's help, of course. They both have been itching to get Russia involved with another war, and with China as they are, Indonesia is the perfect front man for that op. Given that Castro was the probable mastermind and instigator.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[shropshire 0]

Not that sanity is all that common in that part of the world ... but I can't see what Assad would have to gain from using Chemical weapons ... he would know that it would piss off the rest of the world AND he pretty much has the upper hand against the 'revolutionaries'....


It's difficult to take this news Syria-sly

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

[lawrocket 3]

jclalor

***http://www.france24.com/en/20130825-syria-chemical-attack-evidence-may-have-been-destroyed-hague

Nope.

Sit back and savor the moment, it appears I was momentarily wrong. Of course the highly political group Doctors Without Borders has witnessed hundreds of dead and dying from a neuro agent.

With no evidence of who fired off the chemical weapon. We don't know it wasn't the rebels. We know that chemical weapons have a tendency to blow back in the faces of those who fired them.

And while we're at it, note that Hussein had a history of using them.

Barack Dubya Obama seems fitting. Whether it be foreign or domestic policy it's basically the same.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

So President Barack Dubya Obama is looking at taking military action against a middle-eastern government over stated concern about WMDs?

and, everyone will be for it, agree with it, other countries will support it.

until later - when they'll all deny they were for it
and the other party leverages the denials for political advantage

that's just one scenario - but I doubt it would ever materialize

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ryoder 1,590]

lawrocket

And while we're at it, note that Hussein had a history of using them.

And it seems the US wasn't bothered about that during the Iran/Iraq war: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

ryoder

***
And while we're at it, note that Hussein had a history of using them.

And it seems the US wasn't bothered about that during the Iran/Iraq war: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

Payback for the Hostages.

[lawrocket 3]

ryoder

***
And while we're at it, note that Hussein had a history of using them.

And it seems the US wasn't bothered about that during the Iran/Iraq war: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

Yeah. And let's see where Assas got his stuff. Anybody want to fancy a guess that it came from the neighbor to the east?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

lawrocket

******
And while we're at it, note that Hussein had a history of using them.

And it seems the US wasn't bothered about that during the Iran/Iraq war: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

Yeah. And let's see where Assas got his stuff. Anybody want to fancy a guess that it came from the neighbor to the east?

It will be interesting to know what chemical was used and what the shelf life is.

[lawrocket 3]

The suspected chemical is sarin.

Interestingly, a member of the UN investigation team is looking at the rebels as having used them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html


The White House doesn't like this. The UN commission itself released a subsequent statement that investigators had "not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict."

There isn't a whole lot of conclusiveness about this. But what the hell?

Our president has now managed to turn his presidency into a blend of LBJ (Great Society and gulf of Tonkin), Nixon (punishing the press and leakers) and Dubya (the baseline of presidential conduct and policy).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Your hyperbole is the best in the world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

You're puffery is exceptional, as well.

Tell me how the President's domestic and foreign policy is not Bush-like (particularly with relation to anti-terrorism and domestic security).

Tell me how Obama's treatment of leaks and press is not Nixonian? Hey, Nixon spies on people in the Watergate Hotel - IMPEACHMENT! Obama spies on millions of Americans (like Bush before him) and is told that he's just trying to balance security with privacy and he's fine.

How about Johnson? He differs from LBJ how? LBJ brought about Medicare. The president has a health-care angle, too, I understand. LBJ got into foreign wars (like Bush), using ruse and unproven allegations of foreign conduct. Is Syria becoming the next Gulf of Tonkin? In line with WMD justifications for going into Iraq of his predecessor?

Got evidence or hypobole to counter my hyperbole? Or just one-liner dismissals lacking in coherent argument or evidence to the contrary? Let me know what you think (that isn't ad hominem) and let's discuss it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Ad hominem? Nonsense. I was paying you a compliment: the best in the world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

Ad hominem? Nonsense. I was paying you a compliment: the best in the world.

some day he will not hand it back on the plate

Then we will have to wonder how you sit..........

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

[lawrocket 3]

quade

Ad hominem? Nonsense. I was paying you a compliment: the best in the world.

Well, in this case I'll show my humility and decline to accept the award from you. You can keep it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ryoder 1,590]

ryoder

***It's interesting that we may side with the group that is diametrically opposed to their neighbor, who we just spent a trillion dollars on and wasted 4,000 American lives propping up.

This explains it:

Something similar: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/

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

[lummy 4]

Quote

Tell me how Obama's treatment of leaks and press is not Nixonian? Hey, Nixon spies on people in the Watergate Hotel - IMPEACHMENT!

Nixon was impeached for obstruction of justice, not for spying on the DNC in the Watergate hotel. In fact, it is generally believed that Nixon did not order the breakin nor had any prior knowledge it was going to happen.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I should also point out this won't be a unilateral action.

Same thing was said about Iraq... And it was not unilateral.

[mpohl 1]

What scares me the most is that, yet another time, I have to agree with you. I am so far left-field of Obama, you would have to use binoculars to spot me.

But somehow we are coming to the same conclusion. And that is scary!

lawrocket

You're puffery is exceptional, as well.

Tell me how the President's domestic and foreign policy is not Bush-like (particularly with relation to anti-terrorism and domestic security).

Tell me how Obama's treatment of leaks and press is not Nixonian? Hey, Nixon spies on people in the Watergate Hotel - IMPEACHMENT! Obama spies on millions of Americans (like Bush before him) and is told that he's just trying to balance security with privacy and he's fine.

How about Johnson? He differs from LBJ how? LBJ brought about Medicare. The president has a health-care angle, too, I understand. LBJ got into foreign wars (like Bush), using ruse and unproven allegations of foreign conduct. Is Syria becoming the next Gulf of Tonkin? In line with WMD justifications for going into Iraq of his predecessor?

Got evidence or hypobole to counter my hyperbole? Or just one-liner dismissals lacking in coherent argument or evidence to the contrary? Let me know what you think (that isn't ad hominem) and let's discuss it.

[rehmwa 2]

mpohl

What scares me the most is that, yet another time, I have to agree with you. I am so far left-field of Obama, you would have to use binoculars to spot me.

But somehow we are coming to the same conclusion. And that is scary!

I think it's sad that you've pigeon-holed Jerry as a "righty". Or even that it matters compared to the substance of his statements. Political positions are scarily insubstantial and subjective. Why on earth would one consider they'd correlate to direct observations?

All he does it talk about personal responsibility and calls situations as he sees them. Those two things shouldn't be a political bias.

You think you're super 'left'. Why does the label matter?

Why is it scary to agree with someone that's making pretty clear political comparisons?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants