Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria


#61

[quote=“ChewDawg”]I am surprised that the left-wing anti-war crowd that always brought up the 1983 Rummy picture during the 2003 Iraq War (signifying the US switch of providing non-military hardware aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to later attacking Iraq) aren’t equally focusing on this dinner pic between Kerry and Assad. :laughing: :laughing: :smiley:

I am glad Kerry is supporting retaliation to the chemical attacks–I am just entertained by the double standard by commentators on the left who don’t seem to understand geopolitics and shifting alliances.

Rummy as Reagan’s Middle East envoy met with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War when non-military aid was provided to Iraq ( seen as the lesser evil compared with Iran).

But Kerry and Theresa having dinner with Assad in 2009 with all the pus behind the Assad family (e.g., Hama attacks in 1983). :thumbsdown: :2cents: :laughing: A 2009 love in (with Kerry supporting naming an ambassador in 2011) only to turn on them a few years later? :laughing: [/quote]
We were helping both sides. Israel was also doing the same in order to perpetuate the conflict, keep it going, and witness two of some of their worst enemies kill each other off. I believe the US was trying to figure out which side was more likely to win and then help the other side.


#62

Slow down there cowboy, this isn’t the time or place for rational sound arguments pointing out the obvious flaws in American foreign policy. The only thing we should be doing now is thinking less and bombing more. Quickly, before too many other people realize what a horrible mistake we are about to make… again


#63

I am entertained by the black-and-white thinkers (I’m not going to call them “the right” - who the hell decided that politics has only two poles?) who don’t understand that doing something is not the same as doing something constructive.

I think everyone realises that Syria has been a shithole for … well, a bloody long time, and that the Assad clan has been largely responsible.

That doesn’t mean that simply removing Assad is going to make everything all right again. It’s even less logical to assume that bombing the place to hell will turn Syria into a beacon of democracy and civil rights.

Seems to me the best thing the US could do is use its waning power to drag the Security Council into the 21st century. The strict rules of non-intervention clearly don’t work, so perhaps it would be better to formulate some new ones: some clear guidelines that describe exactly when and how a government may be removed by (minimum) force. Perhaps there could be some mechanism by which an entire populace can bypass their government and appeal directly to the UN for intervention. Governments will never be anything other than criminal organisations, but we shouldn’t have to put up with ones that don’t even attempt to keep up the facade. It’s just not funny anymore.


#64

[quote=“jotham”]
We were helping both sides. Israel was also doing the same in order to perpetuate the conflict, keep it going, and witness two of some of their worst enemies kill each other off. I believe the US was trying to figure out which side was more likely to win and then help the other side.[/quote]

I understand this and fully agree with such realpolitik. I am sure Rumsfeld did as well during his time as Envoy with his experience beforehand as a Congressmen, member of the Nixon Cabinet, and successful executive at Searle.

But Kerry? Vietnam Vet against the War spokesperson, failed candidate in 2004 and career politician? Why aren’t the leftist anti-war people criticizing him for yet another flip flop and for betraying previous principles? :smiley: Such hypocrisy and such a free pass!


#65

[quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“jotham”]
We were helping both sides. Israel was also doing the same in order to perpetuate the conflict, keep it going, and witness two of some of their worst enemies kill each other off. I believe the US was trying to figure out which side was more likely to win and then help the other side.[/quote]

I understand this and fully agree with such realpolitik. I am sure Rumsfeld did as well during his time as Envoy with his experience beforehand as a Congressmen, member of the Nixon Cabinet, and successful executive at Searle.

But Kerry? Vietnam Vet against the War spokesperson, failed candidate in 2004 and career politician? Why aren’t the leftist anti-war people criticizing him for yet another flip flop and for betraying previous principles? :smiley: Such hypocrisy and such a free pass![/quote]

I think because a lot of these ‘leftists’ are blindly partisan like your biased flatlander ass and they only know how to react and not think.

Obama and RWBH such as yourself started moving the center to the right back in the Bush years and now everyone on the left minus the ‘loons’ is basically Reagan.

You righties are no better though, giving up your privacy because you are afraid of a few ne’er-do-well ‘dirty’ Moslems. Fatty Roosevelt tried the same scare tactics a hundred plus years ago spouting off about living in an age of steam, no longer an age of sail so people needed to be on guard from the evil’s abroad.

Funny how precious the constitution is one day but the next day people are will to take a big black Sharpie and scratch all over it, at least back in the day people had the balls to tell the scaremongers to go for a flying fuck, but now, our coddled society prefers the wet warmth of our soiled diapers to standing up for what’s right, please Mr. Google, Mr. Microsoft, violate my fourth amendment rights, there are BROWN people out there who pray to a lesser God that wants us dead.

Pussification of the great US nation, I guess the left can take a lot of the blame here, but at least their extremes are the only ones left with cojones, they may be hairy armpitted, Subaru Forrester driving bulldyke cojones, but cojones nontheless, and in an age of eunuchs relentless masturbating to internet porn and stuffing drive thru burgers down their type 2 diabetes throat we gotta take em where we can get em.

Fuck the left, fuck the right, the Hawks are about to complete their Middle East longterm plan (as soon as they make something stick to Iran), pave the fucking region, overflow parking for Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.


#66

I’ve always felt like people who are comfortable being labeled or labeling others as any specific thing are mostly feeble minded followers and not worth debating with anyway. This whole left vs right, Dem vs Rep, it’s pretty small minded to think and talk that way. It’s a shame there aren’t more people with functioning grey matter who can tackle issues on the merits of that specific issue without clouding the subject with stupid labels. :2cents:


#67

People have taken to politics the way they have taken to their sports teams. Reality is there is now very little difference between either side, and what is different is dictated by special interest, favoring big business on the right and favoring labor on the left.

Its all a gigantic piss take. The only worrisome thing is how apathetic most Americans are about what their country does overseas (and all other Anglo countries to a lesser extent, not trying to single out the Americans, we are all guilty but you guys are the ring leaders. that is not to say there aren’t Americans who care, its just that…you know…plenty who haven’t a clue. It is almost like geography is purposely left off the curriculum in public schools).

Its a fools errand to get involved in all these countries where are large part of the population is feudal and believes in nonsense.


#68

Remember that guy who couldn’t spell potato?


#69

Dan Quail? :laughing:


#70

Which rank and file lefties are supporting President George Bush III and Operation Slam Dunk II? I must have missed it. John Kerry has sold his soul and gone over to the dark side, that’s for sure, but he’s a politician so that’s his job.

On another note is anyone aware of any actual evidence having surfaced yet? Judging from the state of affairs in the U.S. this one is shaping up to be yet another example of the thesis that you can fool most of the American people all of the time in that it looks like they’re going to leap entirely over the fact phase again and go straight to the faith based initiative phase.


#71

Well said. The notion that we should intervene now, just because Assad used chemical weapons, is completely absurd. It’s a civil war. As you said, 100,000 people have been killed with conventional weapons. But now that 1000 have been killed with chemical weapons, it’s a crisis?

The only red line that should exist is one at the borders of our nation and those of our allies. Unless there is a serious threat to the US or its friends, we should stay the hell out of the fight.

Having said that, Obama DID draw the red line at chemical weapons, and Assad crossed it. It’s now a question of American credibility. I think it’s a toss-up whether Congress will give the green light, however. McCain just said he’ll vote against the Senate resolution because it doesn’t go far enough. He is hell-bent on completely destroying the Assad regime, and he’s convinced that the rebels are basically secular democrats. I’m sure the ones he met are, but there are plenty of bad guys in the mix, and they have a tendency to dominate post-war Arab nations.

It’s bizarre how many members of Congress are criticizing President Obama for seeking congressional approval. They say he’s setting a bad precedent for future presidents. Well, the last I checked, the Constitution vests the power to declare war solely with Congress. And there’s no point in quibbling about the phrase “declare war”. ANY hostile use of military force is another sovereign’s territory without its consent is an act of war, and requires congressional approval, full stop. President Clinton was wrong to bomb Kosovo without congressional approval, and President Reagan was wrong to support the Contras in Nicaragua and to invade Grenada, without congressional approval. This isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a constitutional issue, and it’s shocking that any member of Congress would so willingly cede this power.


#72

Remember that he had been handed a “vocabulary card” by the teacher who was teaching that class of schoolchildren, on which it was deliberately misspelled?


#73

Remember that he had been handed a “vocabulary card” by the teacher who was teaching that class of schoolchildren, on which it was deliberately misspelled?[/quote]

That may be the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard.


#74

NONONONONONONO!!! Gao Bohan, you have not followed the latest truth from the Ministry of Truth! Obama didn’t set the red line, the WORLD did! Therefore, Obama is not back-pedaling! You are being doubleplusungood!

edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria/

Please adjust your vocabulary immediately or we will have to reeducate you inside the Ministry of Love. Remember the rats? You don’t want the rats again. Or do you?


#75

(With apologies to Winston, I know that’s really supposed to be his schtick, but I just couldn’t resist.)


#76

This Obama guy has done a great job so far on the Syria issue. So far, he’s looking really Presidential.

Something his predecessors have actively avoided at least since JFK, for obvious reasons.

Geez, John McCain is pissed off!

The price of oil is going down.

He lost thousands of dollars on one poker game last night.


#77

news.yahoo.com/obama-reserves-ri … 27751.html

[quote]Recasting his role in setting a “red line” on Syria, President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that Congress and the world will lose credibility if Bashar Assad’s alleged chemical weapons massacre goes unpunished.

“My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line,” Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden. [/quote]
Ummm, yeah, it’s AMERICA’s credibility that’s on the line, not Obama’s. Because Obama has no credibility, and hasn’t (for anyone who was paying any attention) for quite a few years now.


#78

Split Senate Panel Approves Giving Obama Limited Authority on Syria

nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world … ml?hp&_r=0


#79

Seriously, since when is punishment good foreign policy? Either we attack because we are TRULY trying to help the people of Syria, or we leave them alone and clean up our own back yard instead. Bombing them to punish Assad for using Chemical weapons is the most childish thing I’ve ever heard. Besides, widespread possession of chemical weapons may actually be a blessing in disguise. There’s no doubt they are the most feared weapon type. Maybe if more countries have them and a few countries demonstrate they will actually use them, that fear will actually make us think twice about going to war based on stupid F’ing reasons.

Why are we trying to make it more palatable and easier to fight wars? Shouldn’t war be the most feared, horrific, unimaginable result to avoid at all costs? Why are we trying to put a big red bow on it? So we can’t use chemical weapons because they are an actual deterrent to war? But yeah, sitting in a comfortable office 1000 miles away and using drones to do our killing for us, that’s honorable right?

The world would be a much better place if the people who wanted to enact change through violence were the ones who actually put a gun in their hand and did it themselves. At least that would separate true conviction from simple war mongering. I think we’d very quickly find the world quite a peaceful place.


#80

Nice idea, but it would only work for a while. After forcing a bunch of flabby middle-aged men out to the front line, they’d all end up being replaced by psychotic hardcases who actually enjoyed that sort of thing, and we’d be back to the dark ages where the distinction between the government and the military was essentially non-existent. Three cheers for apathy, dithering, and limp-dicked penpushers! The Crusades were kept running for two centuries by stupid men with big weapons and ‘true conviction’.

I wonder if that’s where we get the word ‘convict’ from? :smiley: