Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SyriaFollow

#152 Sep 05 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
What I'm saying is that if the president didn't believe he needed a war powers resolution from congress when he engaged in a longish term air war in Libya, then why does he believe that he does need one for a few one-time punitive airstrikes in Syria?
That's great and all Vizzini, but that's not my point. Not a particularly good attempt to try to distract from what I'm talking about and what you thought you masterfully answered a little earlier. Which, I guess is kind of the point. You believe that people are getting dangerously close to your big secret, so distractions are your only hope. Here's the thing, you went to great lengths about him not going to congress over air strikes. Now you just happen to be all about him doing just that. If, like you say in this thread, him going to congress over it makes us look weak, why didn't you clap your hands and tell us how much of a badass he was back then when he did exactly what you're saying he should have done now? That is what you said right, how he would have looked like a badass if he skipped going to congress? Or was it bad back then to not go to congress like you argued, which now that he is doing so should reward him a little praise if you weren't arguing based on party lines like you said? Which is it? Going to congress is bad? Not going to congress is bad?

"Or are you just being contrarian," he asks rhetorically.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 9:50pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#153 Sep 05 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Here's the thing, you went to great lengths about him not going to congress over air strikes. Now you just happen to be all about him doing just that.


Because it's about relative applicability of the law in question. So the need for a president to seek approval from congress for a military action should be relative to the size, scope, and duration of said military action, right? And we might surmise that there's some demarcation point at which a president should seek such approval, but below that point he does not. Obviously, this will vary from president to president, but it should be consistent. My own personal opinion is that a single punitive airstrike in response to some threat or action by another nation falls below the threshold off needing congressional approval, doubly so if such a response will be most effective if done sooner rather than later but a long term protracted operation (like say a couple weeks of steady bombing, followed by a few months of air support for a larger operation involving multiple nations with the intent of toppling a government) needs congressional approval.

Of course, as I said above, Obama's free to have his own threshold and set it as he wishes. But it makes absolutely zero sense for him to not seek approval for a longer and larger scale operation than a smaller one, right? Doesn't matter what my personal opinion is about what the threshold should be. What matters is where Obama's is. And he doesn't seem to have any consistent threshold at all. ****. He's not even applying one (or his is backwards). Thus, we can conclude that his decision isn't about the requirements of the law, or some belief that it applies in one case, but not in the other, but that it's based on some other criteria. And I've said what I think that criteria is.


To provide a simple example of what I'm talking about, let's imagine that we have a step ladder. One would normally assume that the point of using the step ladder is to assist with being able to reach things that are high. If I were to look at you standing on your tip toes trying to grab something off a high cupboard, I might suggest that you use the step ladder so as to more easily reach it. You're free to ignore my suggestion of course, but it's reasonable for me to make it, and reasonable to think you're making things harder on your self by not (and risking randomly dropping things out of the cupboard to boot). If later I were to ask you to get something out of a chest height cupboard, and you said "I can't unless you get the step ladder for me to use", it would be clear to me that you don't really need to use the step ladder, but don't want to get the thing out of the chest height cupboard and are using that as an excuse not to get it. Clearly, it's not because you think you actually need to use a step ladder to reach that cupboard. You just don't want to.

It's the same thing here. Obama clearly does not believe he needs to get congressional approval to engage in whatever operations might be in play for Syria. Thus this is not about him needing congressional approval, but about him not wanting to take any action against Syria.

This isn't exactly rocket science or anything.

Quote:
"Or are you just being contrarian," he asks rhetorically.


I'm being consistent. I believe that just as the need for a step ladder is based on the relative height of the thing being reached for, the need for a WPA resolution from congress is based on the relative size/scope/duration of a proposed military action. Thus, Obama seeking a WPA resolution from congress for Syria when he didn't seek one for Libya means one of two things:

1. He actually intends to engage in a larger size/scope/duration action in Syria than he did in Libya

or...

2. He's just using it as a means to get out of doing anything in Syria.


Interestingly enough, the "straight" assumption would be option 1. Which is why congress is balking at this right now (cause they're looking at the same pattern and thinking that he wouldn't come to them for a resolution if he just wanted to conduct a few punitive strikes). Which, amusingly enough, is why it makes such a good method to accomplish option 2. He knows there's a good chance that congress will reject his request for precisely the reason that the mere act of making it suggests he intends to do more than just a few strikes if they give him the authorization to.

I happen to believe he has no intention of doing such a thing at all, but he's counting on congress, the media, and the public to reject even the possibility of such a thing.

Unless you have some other explanation? I mean, it's possible that he just tosses darts at a spinning board to make totally random decisions. I'm not sure if that's better though.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 7:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Sep 05 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unless you have some other explanation?
Another noticeable pattern you fallback on is when people point out how much of a hypocrite you are you actually write more about whatever you feel like and ignore the point all together.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#155 Sep 05 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
He knows there's a good chance that congress will reject his request

If by "good" you mean "zero" then you're exactly right.
____________________________
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.

#156 Sep 05 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I already answered this: Obama is allowed by the War Powers Act to take action against Syria without Congressional approval if he desires (within the time frames, etc the Act allows).
Incorrect.

No, it's 100% correct.
Quote:
Maybe I missed the public outcry

You did. Don't get your news from anywhere, etc etc. You're a terrible source for what's going on in the world.
Quote:
If bombing Syria was something he wanted to do, he'd have done it unilaterally, right?

Erm... no?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Sep 05 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I already answered this: Obama is allowed by the War Powers Act to take action against Syria without Congressional approval if he desires (within the time frames, etc the Act allows).
Incorrect.

No, it's 100% correct.
Quote:
Maybe I missed the public outcry

You did. Don't get your news from anywhere, etc etc. You're a terrible source for what's going on in the world.

Except he just cited "the usual pundits". I wonder how he knows what all the pundits are spouting?
____________________________
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.
#158 Sep 06 2013 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
This video clip from the NY Times of Syrian rebels executing some soldiers is from last year, I guess, but getting spread about the intra-waves as propaganda. I tried to watch it - twice. Both times I reflexively clicked off before the killing commenced.

/barf.

I'm not familiar with the emotions or reasonings that come with the gruesome killings and/or torturings of friends and families and neighbors. But how can a non-sadistic group of human beings just shoot a bunch of other human beings dead like that?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#159 Sep 06 2013 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
But how can a non-sadistic group of human beings just shoot a bunch of other human beings dead like that?

You label the other group as not worthy of living. Takes about 3 or 4 days to convince the average person that some other group of people are inhuman evil machines worthy only of suffering and death. Like everyone else on the planet, you could be trivially convinced to do the same. Me, as well. It's part of the broken evolutionary pattern recognition engine in human brains. There are a lot of confusing things about war, people being willing to torture, rape, and kill other people really isn't one of them. It'd be puzzling if it wasn't the case. Most of civilization is simply keeping the natural urge harm others in check through the threat of force.
____________________________
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.

#160 Sep 06 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There are a lot of confusing things about war, people being willing to torture, rape, and kill other people really isn't one of them.
The eight hours of paperwork is amongst the most confusing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 Sep 06 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
The eight hours of paperwork is amongst the most confusing.

Your adjutant is supposed to do all of that ****. You're clearly doing it wrong, you're supposed to be planning how to profit the most personally from the chaos. Stoooopid.
____________________________
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.

#162 Sep 06 2013 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Your adjutant is supposed to do all of that sh*t.
That's why it's only eight hours.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#163 Sep 06 2013 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
If only war were just a pen and paper rpg.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#164 Sep 06 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You label the other group as not worthy of living. Takes about 3 or 4 days to convince the average person that some other group of people are inhuman evil machines worthy only of suffering and death.
If you ***** about anything constantly for 3 or 4 days I'm sure the average person will just go along with it to get you to shut up already. Our government doing the ******** doesn't change change that equation much.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#165 Sep 06 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
If only war were just a pen and paper rpg.
That's silly. It's more like a game of Risk. Even the part where no one really knows how to play.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#166 Sep 06 2013 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
If only war were just a pen and paper rpg.
That's silly. It's more like a game of Risk. Even the part where no one really knows how to play.
I always started by attacking Russia in the autumn. It seemed promising at the time.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#167 Sep 06 2013 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
If only war were just a pen and paper rpg.
That's silly. It's more like a game of Risk. Even the part where no one really knows how to play.

It's more like a game of Axis & Allies where the little toys are cooler than actually going through an entire campaign and the idea of playing it is better than the act.

Also, sometimes you can't account for all the tanks you lost under the couch.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Sep 06 2013 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
Warhammer - by the time your done painting all them little guys, you're not interested in playing with them anymore.

PAINT SYRIA
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#169 Sep 06 2013 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
All the fun is in the character creation screen and placing talent points in the online talent calculator anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#170 Sep 06 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
But how can a non-sadistic group of human beings just shoot a bunch of other human beings dead like that?

You label the other group as not worthy of living. Takes about 3 or 4 days to convince the average person that some other group of people are inhuman evil machines worthy only of suffering and death. Like everyone else on the planet, you could be trivially convinced to do the same. Me, as well. It's part of the broken evolutionary pattern recognition engine in human brains. There are a lot of confusing things about war, people being willing to torture, rape, and kill other people really isn't one of them. It'd be puzzling if it wasn't the case. Most of civilization is simply keeping the natural urge harm others in check through the threat of force.


Nonsense.

It's just these Syrians, that's all - this **** comes easy to them. They're born killers. Barbarians. They'd love to do this **** to us. If they had your wife, your kids - they'd kill em in a heartbeat, and that's if you're lucky.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#171 Sep 06 2013 at 3:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
He knows there's a good chance that congress will reject his request

If by "good" you mean "zero" then you're exactly right.


The longer this goes on, the more the public will oppose any action in Syria, and the lower the odds of any sort of resolution will pass. ****, last I heard polling shows like 80% public opposition to a resolution. The US population hasn't been this joined in agreement over anything for like 10 years. That's not to say that congress wont pass some kind of WPA resolution (yeah, I'm hedging), but that's not really the point. The point is that Obama created this opposition and uproar by choosing the route he did. Had he just ordered some air strikes on day one, by the time anyone knew about it, it would have been over, and the concern about escalation, boots on the ground, etc, would never have materialized.

If he didn't do this intentionally, then he's the stupidest brick head on the planet. And while I think he's misguided, he's not stupid. He wants the uproar. He wants the argument. He wants folks scared about the potential for war. We can speculate about *why* he wants this, but he clearly wants it more than he actually wants to take any action in Syria. Cause, as I've said repeatedly, if he just wanted to do an punitive strike in Syria, he could have done that all on his own and been done with it, and his past actions clearly indicate he has no problem with doing this without getting approval first. Again, we have to assume that his reasons for asking for permission from congress have nothing to do with him actually believing he needs permission from congress. Kind of a given, right?


But hey. Let's see what happens. My prediction is that congress will back down due to public pressure and the political left will be using the "republicans don't care about children being gassed" line in the 2014 election cycle.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Sep 06 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
****, last I heard polling shows like 80% public opposition to a resolution.

Yeah, the poll taken when this all started and you "missed the public outcry" Smiley: laugh

That was actually 80% saying they wanted a congressional resolution before launching an attack but, you know, don't get your news from anywhere.
NBC News, August 30th wrote:
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Sep 06 2013 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
**
662 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
He knows there's a good chance that congress will reject his request

If by "good" you mean "zero" then you're exactly right.


Well, if Washington Post is to be believed, your "zero" is not really a zero. It is currently a non-zero.

Obviously, senate and congress huddled in the hallway to figure out this charade to the great amusement of the proles.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#174 Sep 06 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Quote:
That was actually 80% saying they wanted a congressional resolution before launching an attack but, you know, don't get your news from anywhere.
NBC News, August 30th wrote:
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria


Again. Irrelevant to the point I'm making here. Obama created the question in the first place. It's the tail wagging the dog Joph. The only reason why NBC commissioned the poll was because Obama spent a week or so very publicly taking his time deciding what to do. So... Duh. If he'd simply ordered air strikes on his own on day one and nothing else (and assuming nothing catastrophic happened for our side), and the next week NBC did a poll asking if he should have waited to get congressional approval first, what do you suppose the numbers would have been?

Not 80%.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Sep 06 2013 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Again. Irrelevant to the point I'm making here.

Yeah, the point I'm making is that the number you're citing is a completely different number and was in fact a major catalyst for Obama chosing to go to Congress.

Quote:
If he'd simply ordered air strikes on his own on day one

What's "Day One"? Before the UN inspectors examined the site? Before the reports confirming the weapons used and the delivery systems? Because, ya know, they actually pulled out the UN inspectors a day early for fear that the US would attack. That would have been a couple days AFTER the August 28-29 poll by the way. The one that you say should have never happened because Obama should have just launched a bunch of missiles into Syria.

Silly inspectors... we should have sneak attacked those ******** Who needs information on WHY you're shooting when you can be a total BAD *** and just start blowing shit up?! YE-HAW!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#176 Sep 06 2013 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Oddly enough I heard someone speculate (on NPR I believe) that we should not wait for the inspectors to leave before bombing as that would alert the Syrians.
____________________________
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.
#177 Sep 07 2013 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
I say we nuke Syria until the sand is glass. Why? Well why not, we have nukes right? I mean, let's just stop faffing about. Obliterate them. I mean, they are both "evil". The rebels torture and behead POW's. The government gases its people. Let's just wipe them both off the map, and take out any civilians so that they don't get any ideas about rebuilding and taking over, potentially becoming a US enemy.

Makes about as much sense as what the **** they want to do now. It's yet another civil war the US wants to stick its nose into.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#178 Sep 08 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Well, we are already intervening in Syria by proxy. The question here is air support worh a more visible US presence.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#179 Sep 09 2013 at 5:25 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
I say we nuke Syria until the sand is glass. Why? Well why not, we have nukes right? I mean, let's just stop faffing about. Obliterate them. I mean, they are both "evil". The rebels torture and behead POW's. The government gases its people. Let's just wipe them both off the map, and take out any civilians so that they don't get any ideas about rebuilding and taking over, potentially becoming a US enemy.

Makes about as much sense as what the @#%^ they want to do now. It's yet another civil war the US wants to stick its nose into.
How very diplomatic of you.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#180 Sep 09 2013 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
This post is laced with interwaves of peace and tranquility.

Right at this very moment I'm hoping the House and the Senate will both vote down the Presidents Syrian War bid. This is a stronger possibility in the house than the senate.

If Congress fully rejected the proposal do you think the pres would still go forward with military strikes against the Assad regime (or should it be called the Syrian Government)?







Edited, Sep 9th 2013 2:53pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#181 Sep 09 2013 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
If they vote it down? Cruise missile strikes, no, "Diplomatic aid" to House Harkonen Saud? Absolutely.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#182 Sep 09 2013 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
If Congress fully rejected the proposal do you think the pres would still go forward with military strikes against the Assad regime (or should it be called the Syrian Government)?
If he does, he's going against the people's will and committing a war crime, and if he doesn't he's showing weakness and is totally not a badass.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#183 Sep 09 2013 at 11:07 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,475 posts
RED LINES ARE FUN!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#184 Sep 09 2013 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


...eh, I don't know if I'd say it was "fun"...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Sep 09 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
_____________________________


...eh, I don't know if I'd say it was "fun"...
FiXX0rd
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#186 Sep 09 2013 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those little white gaps were what we call "technicalities".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#187 Sep 09 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
You can't be a badass if you have technicalities, liberal.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#188 Sep 09 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
A dashed red line could present a loophole.

Did Obama explicitly state that the line was solid?




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#189 Sep 09 2013 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
So now they want to give the bad things to the Russians or something? Offering people a ways to save face and weasel out of doing stuff.

CNN thingy[/link]]"We have the possibility of two things: that Russia might actually act decisively to rein Assad in, and also support the only viable policy to accomplish what Obama wants -- protecting the world from these vile weapons," Sullivan wrote Monday. "I have no idea whether this is a serious move by Lavrov -- but it sure seems so, and it presents a fascinating non-binary option. It would manage to bring Russia in to solving this problem, without its having to acquiesce to what Putin regards as American grand-standing. And it would surely have some traction at the UN. Sometimes, it seems, Kerry's incompetence strikes gold. Here's hoping."


In the meantime we seem to be denying that it's an alternative, while at the same time trying to see if it's a way out of the craziness.

Should'a nuked them while we had the chance... Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#190 Sep 09 2013 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance... Smiley: disappointed
The Russians?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#191 Sep 09 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance... Smiley: disappointed
The Russians?

Well, looks like we'll have another chance.
____________________________
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.
#192 Sep 09 2013 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Should'a nuked them while we had the chance... Smiley: disappointed
The Russians?
Why not? Not like we're short on the things.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#193 Sep 09 2013 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
I think Obama really does want this, much like if it was up to Cheney we would have bombed Syria & North Korea (The World According to **** Cheney was enlightening. I thought he was still the brains of the Bush administration during the 2nd term but boy, was I wrong. Thanks Condi for not allowing him to start WWIII!).

Odd thing is, the British & even the French also seem to want this too. I don't think it's going to happen though. Ideally, let's take the money we would have spent on lobbing some missiles at inconsequential targets & use it to take care of the 4+ million refugees. While perhaps a bit heartless, 1400 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K+ that have already died. Sure, chemical weapons are nasty, but so are bunker busters, cluster bombs, & napalm.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#194 Sep 09 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,949 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I think Obama really does want this, much like if it was up to Cheney we would have bombed Syria & North Korea (The World According to **** Cheney was enlightening. I thought he was still the brains of the Bush administration during the 2nd term but boy, was I wrong. Thanks Condi for not allowing him to start WWIII!).

Odd thing is, the British & even the French also seem to want this too. I don't think it's going to happen though. Ideally, let's take the money we would have spent on lobbing some missiles at inconsequential targets & use it to take care of the 4+ million refugees. While perhaps a bit heartless, 1400 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K+ that have already died. Sure, chemical weapons are nasty, but so are bunker busters, cluster bombs, & napalm.


Is it surprising? A chance to weaken Russia's influence in the Middle East and gain increased trade rights with Syria?

What, did you think the Cold War was over or something? Smiley: lol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#195 Sep 09 2013 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, the UN seems game to the idea.
Reuters wrote:
UNITED STATES: In a bid to help the UN Security Council overcome its ‘embarrassing paralysis’, the UN chief said today he may ask the council to demand that Syria move its chemical arms stocks to Syrian sites where they can be safely stored and destroyed.

Later this week or next week, the UN team of chemical weapons experts, led by Ake Sellstrom of Sweden, is expected to submit a report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about its investigation of an August 21 chemical attack that the United States says killed over 1,400 people, many of them children.

“I have already been considering certain proposals that I could make to the Security Council when I present the investigation team’s report,” Ban said, adding that the international community would be obligated to act if the use of poison gas in Syria’s two-and-a-half-year civil war was confirmed.

“I’m considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed,” he said.

Russia doesn't want a US strike on Syria so they're likely to work with the rest of the Security Council on a UN-endorsed plan. Russia has already requested that UN inspectors be returned to Syria (though that has the secondary effect of delaying a potential strike -- not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Sep 09 2013 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
Depends on which letter is doing the asking and which is being asked.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 Sep 09 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Russia doesn't want a US strike on Syria so they're likely to work with the rest of the Security Council on a UN-endorsed plan. Russia has already requested that UN inspectors be returned to Syria (though that has the secondary effect of delaying a potential strike -- not everyone thinks it's totally bad *** to bomb nations with UN inspectors roaming about).
I'm a fan of the fact the plan actually seems to involve getting rid of the weapons. Since we likely weren't going to be targeting the weapons with airstrikes they were still going to be laying around afterwards waiting to be used. They've been a listed fear since the beginning of the conflict, and it would be nice to actually get rid of them (or give them to Russia, whatever) and let these two sides kill each other in peace. I mean because if there's anything worse than a dictator with chemical weapons it's a dictator with chemical weapons who's mad at you.

Because then they'd totally use chemical weapons on the New York Times' building! Smiley: tinfoilhat

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#198 Sep 09 2013 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The admittedly embryonic plans that I've heard would have it be a Russian-led UN effort to remove the weapons but not simply Russia removing and being solely responsible for the weapons.

Although the only real difference there is being sure that the weapons are removed and accounted for. Not as though Russia can't make all the sarin themselves that they'd ever personally want. Off the cuff, I'd assume that Russia would want to be fairly diligent about it since discovery of more weapons in Syria (or another gas attack) would be a major embarrassment for Russia.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Sep 09 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
If nothing else it's nice to be discussing a plan that doesn't involve us killing more people.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#200 Sep 09 2013 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Besides blowing them up?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Sep 09 2013 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
That sounds like the perfect solution, blow them up. We put them all in a big blimp and have giant fans blow them high in the sky. Hopefully when the thing runs out of helium they'll land in some far off country and be someone else's problem. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CST