Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SyriaFollow

#52 Aug 29 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Saddam!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#53 Aug 29 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jesus!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#54 Aug 29 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Godzilla!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Aug 29 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Spiderman!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#56 Aug 29 2013 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Ra's Al Ghul
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#57 Aug 29 2013 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
Screenshot
.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#58 Aug 29 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Steve Guttenburg.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Aug 29 2013 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
While there is apparently serious evidence to the use of chemical weapons

Who gives a fuck about the use of chemical weapons? No one. The point here is the rebellion against authority, not the event. The absurdity of the whole concept of "oh you can line your own people up and mow them down with machine gun fire THAT'S fine, just don't use gas" should be obvious. Clearly it isn't. Clearly using chemical weapons to inflict pain and suffering is magical and very very mean in a way shooting people in the face or dropping fire on them isn't. World War 1 was a loooong time ago. The terror of symmetrical attrition warfare carried out using mustard gas or the like is an imaginary horror. Sanction nation states for killing large numbers of people, not the methods they choose to accomplish that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#60 Aug 29 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
So *have* they killed enough people yet for us to go in and kill the rest?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#61 Aug 29 2013 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Oh sure, it starts as "us" but kick one puppy off a cliff and it's suddenly "them."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Aug 29 2013 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
While there is apparently serious evidence to the use of chemical weapons

Who gives a fuck about the use of chemical weapons? No one. The point here is the rebellion against authority, not the event. The absurdity of the whole concept of "oh you can line your own people up and mow them down with machine gun fire THAT'S fine, just don't use gas" should be obvious. Clearly it isn't.


While I somewhat agree with what you're saying in terms of semi-arbitrary "rules" in play, it's not just fine to line people up and mow them down with machine gun fire. In fact it's a war crime whether the targets are civilian or military. Now whether it's as likely to generate the same outrage? Who knows. I suspect about the same probability.

Quote:
Clearly using chemical weapons to inflict pain and suffering is magical and very very mean in a way shooting people in the face or dropping fire on them isn't. World War 1 was a loooong time ago. The terror of symmetrical attrition warfare carried out using mustard gas or the like is an imaginary horror. Sanction nation states for killing large numbers of people, not the methods they choose to accomplish that.


I think the point is that we allow small arms and targeted munitions in warfare because there's at least the illusion of an attempt to minimize casualties among non-combatants. Large scale bombings tend to be frowned upon, but can still at least be argued as "it's a physical explosive and we really did try to hit that munitions factory and not that hospital next door". When you drop chemical weapons in an area, it hits everyone in the area, whether outside holding a weapon, or hiding in a bomb shelter. In fact, I think the primary rational for banning chemical weapons in war was precisely because while they're not actually that effective at killing people who are outside, on top of hills, driving around in tanks or jeeps, or otherwise actively engaged in fighting, they are incredibly good at seeping into low lying enclosed spaces, which is where civilians and wounded people tend to hide out whilst the battle is raging outside.

Fair or nor, overreaction or not, the leaders of the civilized world saw what happened when relatively primitive gas weapons were used in proximity to soldiers in low lying trenches along the front lines in WW1, realized instantly what would happen if they were used in an urban area, and decided to ban them. And they were almost certainly right to do so. Our rules of war, as silly as that sounds, are ultimately designed to allow party's to a military conflict to fight, while attempting to minimize the number of civilian casualties. They are not perfect, but they're better than nothing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Aug 30 2013 at 1:01 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
it's not just fine to line people up and mow them down with machine gun fire. In fact it's a war crime whether the targets are civilian or military. Now whether it's as likely to generate the same outrage? Who knows. I suspect about the same probability.


Probably not.

I seem to remember 1300 or so unarmed and peaceful demonstrators being murdered in the middle of Cairo the other day by the Egyptian Govt who happen to be , this week at least, the military, all filmed in HD for the TV, and I don't see anyone calling for the bombing of Egyptian military assets to illustrate our displeasure.

Smash is right. Its an effort by the usual suspects to try and appeal to the emotions of their respective populaces (populi?) to allow them to get rid of Assad by firing missiles at him (initially).

I'm assuming that Obama realizes that if he bombs Assad tho', then he will be joining the fight on the side of Al Qaeda (such as they still operate) and that when the FSA (lol) rolls into Damascus as 'liberators', they will immediately take possession of one of the largest stockpiles of true WMD's in the region.

That's a pretty fUcking ****** outcome in my opinion.

At least the Brits have been smart enough to realize that (so far at least) and have told that muppet Cameron to go and fUck himself.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#64 Aug 30 2013 at 5:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
While I somewhat agree with what you're saying in terms of semi-arbitrary "rules" in play, it's not just fine to line people up and mow them down with machine gun fire. In fact it's a war crime whether the targets are civilian or military.

"War Crime" is a meaningless term. Civilians are intentionally murdered in every conflict, by all sides, on a near constant basis. The whole idea of "war crimes" is a self righteous sham designed to differentiate victors and villanize losing forces. With the intent of maintaining civilian population's will to go to war. See also: Nuremberg Show Trials. It'd be more honest and direct to just have a public stoning of captured leaders.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#65 Aug 30 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
See also: Nuremberg Show Trials.
Wasn't much of a talent show.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Sep 01 2013 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Congress: You better not take any action without asking Congress!
President: I'm going to ask Congress to vote on taking military action against Syria.
Congress: Oh... shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Sep 02 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
*
229 posts
Only one mention of iRaq in the entire thread.

Not counting "Saddam". Or this.

Edited, Sep 2nd 2013 12:45pm by Demoncard
#68 Sep 02 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Should there be more? The two situations really aren't very similar, especially in the sought-after US response.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Sep 02 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Syria doesn't start with an I, so they're probably safe from secret proxy wars waged by Apple over future product name copyright conflict potential. iOwa is next!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#70 Sep 02 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,257 posts

I am conflicted. I am not a decision maker on this so my input does not really matter. However, much to my surprise*, I was relieved that the president decided to put the onus on congress and not just bomb stuff (yet**).

* I am not a big fan of Putin's Russia. Most of the time, any way to make them less relevant to world's events is a good way. It is just that, like most sane people, I am worried this conflict could easily change into something the US cannot control.

** It is kind of fun watching "Bomb bomb bomb" McCain going for and against the initiative at the same time
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#71 Sep 03 2013 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
angrymnk wrote:

I am conflicted. I am not a decision maker on this so my input does not really matter. However, much to my surprise*, I was relieved that the president decided to put the onus on congress and not just bomb stuff (yet**).
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#72 Sep 03 2013 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.

It's issue avoidance for the '14 midterms, nothing more. Also, there's is absolutely nothing at stake for Obama. He could care less if there's an attack or not, but by appearing to want one he forces the House to either show they agree with him, which diametrically opposes their entire political strategy...or to vote against faux tough guy military response which I believe will cost them not only votes in the mid terms but also their "man card".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#73 Sep 03 2013 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Elinda wrote:
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.
He'll never get reelected with these kinds of decisions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Sep 03 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.

It's issue avoidance for the '14 midterms, nothing more. Also, there's is absolutely nothing at stake for Obama. He could care less if there's an attack or not, but by appearing to want one he forces the House to either show they agree with him, which diametrically opposes their entire political strategy...or to vote against faux tough guy military response which I believe will cost them not only votes in the mid terms but also their "man card".

That's an interesting paradox - what are Republicans to do with a seemingly war-mongering Democrat?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#75 Sep 03 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Debalic wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.

It's issue avoidance for the '14 midterms, nothing more. Also, there's is absolutely nothing at stake for Obama. He could care less if there's an attack or not, but by appearing to want one he forces the House to either show they agree with him, which diametrically opposes their entire political strategy...or to vote against faux tough guy military response which I believe will cost them not only votes in the mid terms but also their "man card".

That's an interesting paradox - what are Republicans to do with a seemingly war-mongering Democrat?


It's not that simple. Obama doesn't want to take any military action at all, but he also doesn't want to appear to be weak. And there's that problematic red line comment he made last year specific to Syria and the use of chemical weapons. The problem here is that Presidents don't normally go to Congress and get permission for air strikes in response to something going on in the world around them. They take action immediately while there's some value in taking action immediately. The take their time and go to Congress when what they want is large enough scale that there's some concern about the War Powers Act.

Which makes this whole thing a catch-22. Taking time to get congressional approval for a small and limited response (like an air strike on a handful of military sites) guarantees that the response will be pointless (cause we've taken too much time and telegraphed what we're going to do). Add to that the broad language of what he's asking for and you can't be surprised with congress not really believing that he's actually coming to them but only wanting to do a limited air strike. Which is precisely why Kerry is being trotted out in front of senator after senator to promise that there wont be boots on the ground. From congress' perspective the only reason to come to them is because you are wanting approval for a larger scale military operation.

Which is almost certainly intentional. Obama is responding to the chemical weapons use in Syria in the one way most likely to result in him not having to do anything about it, while not looking like he just ignored the problem. He wants congress to vote against action. Surely no one thinks he actually believes he needs congressional approval for an airstrike? He waged a large scale air war in Libya with the intent of toppling the current regime and didn't bother to get approval from congress. He clearly doesn't think he needs it for this. It's CYA if they vote for it, and off-the-hook if they don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Sep 03 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Elinda wrote:
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.


gbaji wrote:
He clearly doesn't think he needs it for this. It's CYA if they vote for it, and off-the-hook if they don't.


/agree

There's really not a lot of public support for any sort of intervention. Best to have the blame rest with the 'do nothing' congress rather than himself, or something like that.

Also this is relevant.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (68)