War with Syria

[Andy9o8 2]

quade

The defeatist attitude..

That's a terribly unfair demonizing, Paul, and I urge you to retract it.

[masterblaster72 0]

quade

Some people have said, "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing."

Well, our doing nothing has amounted in over 400,000 deaths in Darfur. We stayed pretty silent on that one.

Let's pretend for a moment that the US are the "good men" who still have any semblance of moral credibility from the time we left Vietnam: I don't think much would be lost if we "do nothing" on this one.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[masterblaster72 0]

quade

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

That said, I was (still am) angry as hell when it turned out to be a con by the signatory members of the PNAC.

And for that very reason I would be cautiously optimistic about this mission as well. After the last administration's con job, I have little faith left in what this government, regardless of administration, tells/sells me. Especially when it's pushing so emphatically for war.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[quade 4]

You do realize different guys are in charge now; right?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,590]

quade

You do realize different guys are in charge now; right?

And the top guy has lied to us about illegal surveillance, and authorized 5X the number of drone strikes in just his first term, as Dubya did in two terms.

"Meet the new boss..."

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

[quade 4]

ryoder

***You do realize different guys are in charge now; right?

And the top guy has lied to us about illegal surveillance, and authorized 5X the number of drone strikes in just his first term, as Dubya did in two terms.

The surveillance and drones are a double-edged swords.

I have no issues with drone strikes against difficult targets in difficult countries. None.

While surveillance in the US is a legitimate cause for heartburn. I also have ZERO issues with its use against foreign targets. It appears as if a good chunk of its use has provided quite a bit of good intelligence and specifically in this case.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

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

No, that came later:

Quade 2004: "Bush (43) made an amazingly poor choice of launching a war in Iraq."

Quade 2004: "Its real message, beyond the GWB bashfest . . . war sucks and the poor usually fight the battles for the benefit of the wealthy. It's a compelling argument well made."

So why not skip over the mistakes you made last time and get to the "defeatist attitude" now, instead of in 2015?

[HIDGAF84 0]

quade

The defeatist attitude.

Sigh.

People make me lose faith in humanity.

The "defeatist attitude"?

Shaking Head -- "Sigh."

I sure am glad you are not the commander-in-chief, and am very frightened that we have a community organizer, as the commander-in-chief; surrounded by numerous Bush advisers.

And, I would say, you are quite clueless as of the big picture over there.



Now, since you are on the McCain/Graham side of the matter, what do you think of Graham's recent statements:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/05/grahams-hawkish-posture-confronts-war-weary-voters-in-south-carolina

"I believe that if we get Syria wrong, within six months -- and you can quote me on this," Graham said, pausing for dramatic effect. "There will be a war between Iran and Israel over their nuclear program."

But it wouldn't even end there, Graham surmised. Undoubtedly, he said ominously, the Iranians would share its nuclear technology with U.S. enemies.

"My fear is that it won't come to America on top of a missile, it'll come in the belly of a ship in the Charleston or New York harbor," he said.


Yeah, ah, well, I'd say a war between Israel and Iran is MORE likely if the United States does start launching cruise missiles into Syria; not less likely.

As well as:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/sen-lindsey-graham-wrong-move-almost-ensures-israe/

“I think the American people have to understand if this war goes another year, here’s what’s likely to happen: there will be tens of thousands of al Qaeda in Syria, there will be a toppling of the King of Jordan, the last moderate voice in the region and a close ally to us and Israel — he’ll be gone in another year because of the refugee problem,” Mr. Graham said on CNN’s “New Day.” “The chemical weapons will be loose and in the hands of Hezbollah and may come our way, so … Iran is watching every move we make in Syria.”

“If we get Syria wrong, if we show weakness here regarding Assad’s chemical weapons utilization, you’re almost ensuring a war between Israel and Iran over their nuclear program, and we will surely get drawn into that,” Mr. Graham said Tuesday. “So to the American people: if you’re worried about the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon, as I am, the last card to play to stop that is how we handle Syria.”



All of which makes no sense (except the Jordan part to a degree - IF, Assad does fall), given...:

Report: Obama ‘Vetoed’ Israeli Strike on Iran
http://freebeacon.com/report-obama-vetoed-israeli-strike-on-iran/



If not for Obama, Israel would have already taken care of business in Iran.

And they DO have the capability, don't kid yourself; they do not need our help, with THAT.

Additionally: I think Israel is more than happy with a US strike in Syria, because, it will most definitely pull the United States into war; because US involvement in Syria, regardless of scope or duration, WILL lead to WWIII, and Israel is more than happy to have more than verbal support from the United States, with all the things they already have wanted to do.

Screw the chemical weapons usage, this is about WWIII.

How many will die from more chemical weapons use (used within Syria) vs. WWIII?

Now, if Syria hits / tries to hit Israel with chemical weapons, or anyone else outside of Syria, I say bomb the crap out of Syria. While at the same time, Israel will take care of any transfers to Hez or others; they already have been. They just never take credit for their, successes; except when Obama Admin douche bags leak info... like the cyber war with Iran.

[quade 4]

Fighting the proliferation and use of chemical weapons is, to me, worth it.

If it's later found out this is a ruse, I'll be as upset with Obama and those who created it as I am with GWB and the war criminals who lead him to invade Iraq. Until then, in this case, I support stopping crimes against humanity.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

If it's later found out this is a ruse, I'll be as upset with Obama and those who created it as I am with GWB and the war criminals who lead him to invade Iraq. Until then, I support stopping crimes against humanity.

Shoot first, think later, in the name of humanity (when convenient to US interests). Sounds like a newer version of TR's big stick diplomacy.

We just got out of the last war started with shallow premise and you're already eager to replace it with another?

let's back up:

quade

You do realize different guys are in charge now; right?

Uh, the one that continued most Bush policies after running on a campaign to do the opposite. But you can also go back to the Clinton Administration and the Bush one before to see some pretty consistent action wrt the use of force.

Let's sum it up - like jcalor in his attempts to defend the NSA, you just can't apply the same standards to Obama as you did with the guy you didn't like.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

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

Precisely what that something is has yet to be determined.

It's impossible to debate doing "something."

Well, no, you can bloat and pontificate in the safety of vagueness, but if we're talking about intelligent discussion, no, we actually need to deal with specifics.

[quade 4]

kelpdiver

Well, no, you can bloat and pontificate in the safety of vagueness, but if we're talking about intelligent discussion, no, we actually need to deal with specifics.

You do realize that absolutely nobody outside of secret briefings has the slightest idea about target selection; right?

That right now virtually everything is on the table with the exception of those things specifically taken off. So NO to "boots on the ground" and "invasion" but everything else including NOT bombing and sanctions are a possibility.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

This is a clip by Ben Swann about syria.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83519924/

[regulator 0]

We can relax now guys. Just got intel we're sending in the A-Team.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f53_1378668985

[quade 4]

Ben Swann.

Yeah, he knows what he's talking about.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_22404902/media-buzz-former-ktsm-anchor-ben-swann-taking

Glenn Beck wannabe.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

Pretty sure you'd say the same thing about any reporter with conservative leanings.

[quade 4]

regulator

Pretty sure you'd say the same thing about any reporter with conservative leanings.

Nope. Just has to be an actual conservative and not a grand stander attempting to to become the next "Lonesome" Rhodes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Channman 2]

masterblaster72

***

Some people have said, "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing."

Well, our doing nothing has amounted in over 400,000 deaths in Darfur. We stayed pretty silent on that one.

Let's pretend for a moment that the US are the "good men" who still have any semblance of moral credibility from the time we left Vietnam: I don't think much would be lost if we "do nothing" on this one.

I guess what troubles me is Obama seems far more interested in responding to a chemical attack, than he was in providing any help what so ever to four American's defending themselves and roughly 30 others against a Terrorist attack while making repeated calls for help. Nope, nothing...not a damn thing that man did to assist our men.

And with the help from the 4th branch of Government, the liberal media...the truth of that night still remains a secret to the American people. I know some hear believe there is more than enough prof that chemical weapons where used, but I'm still not convinced which group used them. There were those that found it hard to trust GWB, It is equally difficult for me to trust Obama.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

***Well, no, you can bloat and pontificate in the safety of vagueness, but if we're talking about intelligent discussion, no, we actually need to deal with specifics.

You do realize that absolutely nobody outside of secret briefings has the slightest idea about target selection; right?

That right now virtually everything is on the table with the exception of those things specifically taken off. So NO to "boots on the ground" and "invasion" but everything else including NOT bombing and sanctions are a possibility.

he's asking for Congressional signoff to apply sanctions? Thought not.

We've done this dance before - on multiple occasions we did bootless bombings of Iraq. And guess what, we ended up invading them because the bombings did little but make the lives of the little people there harder. Did nothing to Hussein, or to change the state of affairs. I'm sure they had secret briefings that had targets on it. A bit irrelevant.

[billvon 2,991]

>I guess what troubles me is Obama seems far more interested in responding to a >chemical attack, than he was in providing any help what so ever to four American's
>defending themselves

You forgot Ayers, Wright and birth certificate. It's not a good Obama rant without them.

[Channman 2]

billvon

>I guess what troubles me is Obama seems far more interested in responding to a >chemical attack, than he was in providing any help what so ever to four American's
>defending themselves

You forgot Ayers, Wright and birth certificate. It's not a good Obama rant without them.

I didn't think it was a rant as you put it. But in the future I will try and remember to throw in a little Ayer, Wright, and Commie Bastard terms when I go on a rant which I'm prone to do from time to time.

EDITED: OK, I re-read my post...it does seem to be a rant. But is doesn't change the fact Obama is a Ayers loving, Wright worshipping Commie Bastard!!

[normiss 801]

"No boots on ground" = CIA advisers.
Or something similar.
Our government is impressively adept at applying the desired definition of anything said. Truth and accuracy be damned.

[quade 4]

Understand the CIA is not the military and assume they are in Syria as well as every other country on the planet.

Now . . . you were saying?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>"No boots on ground" = CIA advisers.

Right. They wear loafers, not boots.

[ryoder 1,590]

billvon

>"No boots on ground" = CIA advisers.

Right. They wear loafers, not boots.

No, no! They are trying to blend in with the natives, so they are wearing sandals.

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