FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Her3tiK on August 30, 2013, 03:48:42 pm

Title: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 30, 2013, 03:48:42 pm
Somehow this doesn't seem to have a thread yet. Anyways, Russia has deployed two additional warships, anti-missile and anti-submarine, to the Mediterranean. They're saying it's part of "routine exercises", but I'm pretty sure everyone knows its specifically to counter the 5 warships the US have sent to the region (http://rt.com/usa/fifth-warship-stout-syria-173/).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_090jSIrSI

Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry has brought forth "evidence" (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kerry-us-syria-chemical-attack-20130830,0,2222419.story) of Assad using chemical weapons against terrorists/civilians, but cannot reveal it because "it would put at risk intelligence 'sources and methods.'" Since, y'know, it's not really clear what this evidence is, I'm fairly inclined to believe that it's all bullshit.



I'm turning WWIII into a drinking game. One shot for each city flattened. Who's with me?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: starseeker on August 30, 2013, 03:51:39 pm
UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)

Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 30, 2013, 03:56:12 pm
UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)

Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
And more power to 'em on that. If only more nations would follow suit.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: starseeker on August 30, 2013, 03:59:09 pm
UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)

Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
And more power to 'em on that. If only more nations would follow suit.

More fun's going to occur if the US formally intervenes and we refuse to. Definitly gonna be Iraq MK2 if that happens.
I don't think our Army has the manpower to do a third front, think the only divisions not understaffed are the Gurkas.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: MadCatTLX on August 30, 2013, 04:04:14 pm
I thank that video for the mental image of Obama and Putin in a literal dick waving contest.

I'd love to know why Russia is defending Syria even with their recent actions. I know you want to be an antagonistic ass Putin, but is now really the time?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: dpareja on August 30, 2013, 04:05:53 pm
UK Parliament voted not to intervene with a majority of 13.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898848)

Causing no end of arguements since it was the ruling coalition that wanted to intervene.
And more power to 'em on that. If only more nations would follow suit.

It should be noted, however, that the vote was non-binding, though in practice if the government goes against the expressed wishes of the Commons bad things will ensue.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: guizonde on August 30, 2013, 04:23:00 pm
I'm turning WWIII into a drinking game. One shot for each city flattened. Who's with me?

it'll drown out my sorrows, but i prefer chugging pints rather than shots, hope that's ok. i'm in.


the world never seems to learn, does it?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on August 30, 2013, 05:24:18 pm
Putin's bluffing. Nobody would start a nuclear war, not over a tiny little naval base.

Now, I think it would be a mistake to bomb Syria.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on August 30, 2013, 05:38:14 pm
Small note.  John Kerry is no longer a Senator.  He's the Secretary of State.

Ironbite-just being pedantic.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on August 30, 2013, 05:42:02 pm
One of the things I hate most about this is watching John "Vietnam Veterans Against War" Kerry argue in favour of a bombing campaign.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on August 30, 2013, 05:49:56 pm
I thank that video for the mental image of Obama and Putin in a literal dick waving contest.

I'd love to know why Russia is defending Syria even with their recent actions. I know you want to be an antagonistic ass Putin, but is now really the time?

I'm gonna come along and explain the Russia/Syria thing. Russia has bases they really want to stay open in Syria. Russia has also beefed up Syria over the years where military stuff is concerned. Syria had a bunch of SIGs because of Russia. The Russia/Syria agreements have been there since before Putin.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 30, 2013, 06:03:56 pm
Small note.  John Kerry is no longer a Senator.  He's the Secretary of State.

Ironbite-just being pedantic.
I probably could've reread the LA Times article for that. Didn't really care enough to check.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on August 30, 2013, 08:46:52 pm
I thank that video for the mental image of Obama and Putin in a literal dick waving contest.

I'd love to know why Russia is defending Syria even with their recent actions. I know you want to be an antagonistic ass Putin, but is now really the time?

I'm gonna come along and explain the Russia/Syria thing. Russia has bases they really want to stay open in Syria. Russia has also beefed up Syria over the years where military stuff is concerned. Syria had a bunch of SIGs because of Russia. The Russia/Syria agreements have been there since before Putin.
Also China has agreements wth Sudan and Syria for other things (in Sudan it's oil) Basically US and EU focus on the wealthy middle east and Russia and China get the poor half
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: MadCatTLX on August 30, 2013, 10:03:58 pm
Well here's a fun story that just happened. Me and my little brother had just pulled in to our driveway on the way back from going to pick up food for dinner and he gets oout to open the gate. Once he gets out I'm fiddling with buttons trying to figure out how to turn off the light I accidentally turned on earlier. In the process I hit a button that changes the radio station to Dan Savage's Savage Nation.

Oh boy, I think I lost noticeable brain mass from that minute of listening to it. He said Something to the effect of -

 "I've been watching the BBC and they're reporting what the American news stations won't, that US warships have been sighted of the coast of Iceland (I think that's what he said) on their way to Syria. Obama's going to strike Syria in the night while Americans are too busy partying to care!

Obama needs to be impeached. He should be dragged before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague! These are definitely war crimes he's committing! He's attacking Syria after they used chemicals once! The recent attack hasn't even been confirmed and it's probably the rebels!

This is nothing like the Holocaust. Even if it was it would be like bombing the trains of prisoners to stop it!"

At this point my little brother was getting back in the car and I promptly shut the radio off, both because I couldn't listen to it anymore and because I didn't want to expose my little brother to the concentrated stupid that was spewed forth.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on August 30, 2013, 10:09:50 pm
Oh hohohohoho Dan Savage. Wow.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: lord gibbon on August 30, 2013, 10:10:38 pm
Well here's a fun story that just happened. Me and my little brother had just pulled in to our driveway on the way back from going to pick up food for dinner and he gets oout to open the gate. Once he gets out I'm fiddling with buttons trying to figure out how to turn off the light I accidentally turned on earlier. In the process I hit a button that changes the radio station to Dan Savage's Savage Nation.

Oh boy, I think I lost noticeable brain mass from that minute of listening to it. He said Something to the effect of -

 "I've been watching the BBC and they're reporting what the American news stations won't, that US warships have been sighted of the coast of Iceland (I think that's what he said) on their way to Syria. Obama's going to strike Syria in the night while Americans are too busy partying to care!

Obama needs to be impeached. He should be dragged before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague! These are definitely war crimes he's committing! He's attacking Syria after they used chemicals once! The recent attack hasn't even been confirmed and it's probably the rebels!

This is nothing like the Holocaust. Even if it was it would be like bombing the trains of prisoners to stop it!"

At this point my little brother was getting back in the car and I promptly shut the radio off, both because I couldn't listen to it anymore and because I didn't want to expose my little brother to the concentrated stupid that was spewed forth.

Ha! the traitor! Everyone knows BBC is a puppet of the NWO! A real American only listens to Fox and Rush.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 30, 2013, 11:28:08 pm
As long as my country stays the fuck out of it, you guys do whatever the fuck you want.

One more reason to hope that Abbott doesn't get elected, I suppose.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Jack Mann on August 30, 2013, 11:39:00 pm
Other issue with Russia:  Because Syria is an ally, they have to make at least a token protest.  If they let this go through without at least making the gesture, it would cause their other allies to lose faith in them.  Same reason why China and Russia tend to oppose sanctions against North Korea.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: lord gibbon on August 30, 2013, 11:45:30 pm
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on August 30, 2013, 11:52:10 pm
thats not dan savage that mochael savage
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 31, 2013, 12:01:18 am
Damn that Mochael Savage.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on August 31, 2013, 01:30:31 am
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?

Actually, the rebels have made it easier. The Islamists and the secularists are fighting each other. So we can basically just support the Free Syrian Army - which isn't that united, but they're pretty much all the people we like.

A Libyan-style intervention should do the trick.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on August 31, 2013, 01:34:36 am
Quote
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?

This is exactly how I feel about it. Not sure what to think.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: guizonde on August 31, 2013, 07:42:00 am
Quote
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?

This is exactly how I feel about it. Not sure what to think.

how about instead of dropping bombs and choosing a camp (or choosing between the plague and cholera) we send in aid, logistical support for the civilians? keep the armed guard around so that the rebels or the army can't get the supplies and make sure that its helping the population and not fuelling the fire?

let warriors wage war, let the civilians live.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on August 31, 2013, 08:55:10 am
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?
Really doesn't need to be. People just are so worried about interfering in anything or ever daring to get involved in other people's business that they'd rather let thousands die. The money spent on our military isn't exactly refundable. The least we can do is not let brutal dictators continue to torture and kill people. However, apparently it's racist to acknowledge that there are dictators in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 31, 2013, 10:14:05 am
Quote
Damn, I feel really conflicted about this. One the one hand, I understand that our track record of successful interventions isn't exactly stellar, considering Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that there is not a very well united rebel group, nor one we can be sure that it is right to support, what with the Islamist influences. But I honestly feel guilty about possessing the power and ability to do something good like aiding the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship and yet not doing it. Damn it all, why must everything be so complicated?

This is exactly how I feel about it. Not sure what to think.

how about instead of dropping bombs and choosing a camp (or choosing between the plague and cholera) we send in aid, logistical support for the civilians? keep the armed guard around so that the rebels or the army can't get the supplies and make sure that its helping the population and not fuelling the fire?

let warriors wage war, let the civilians live.
Yeah.... no. Much as I'd like to agree with you, food/medical supplies is too hot a target, and putting our troops in Syrian territory, regardless of the reasons, will be seen as an act of war. Do you really think Russia will stand for that, given their behavior?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on August 31, 2013, 12:02:06 pm
Relevant article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579044642794711158.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Quote
Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards. The jihadists pouring into Syria from countries like Iraq and Lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. Instead they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas of the country.

(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AR204_obagy_G_20130830164816.jpg)

Groups like Jabhat al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate, are all too happy to take credit for successes on the battlefield, and are quick to lay claim to opposition victories on social media. This has often led to the impression that these are spearheading the fight against the Syrian government. They are not.

The extremists and moderates have split into two groups. There is now a three-way war in Syria, and it's fairly obvious which side to support.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Yla on August 31, 2013, 12:16:19 pm
If the West had intervened earlier, al-Nusra et al would never had gained the support they had.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 31, 2013, 12:24:59 pm
It is not our job to police the world. The only reason I can justify getting involved is if the fighting spreads to neighboring countries that want no part of it. Otherwise, it's an internal affair that Syria needs to deal with on its own.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: nickiknack on August 31, 2013, 12:31:54 pm
I'm very afraid that this turn into another clusterfuck like Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we'll end up bogged down for years to come. I would feel better we had a coalition of some sort to go in to it, and it seems that Obama is rushing into it, funny given that he had a problem when Bush rushed into Iraq.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 31, 2013, 12:40:41 pm
I'm very afraid that this turn into another clusterfuck like Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we'll end up bogged down for years to come. I would feel better we had a coalition of some sort to go in to it, and it seems that Obama is rushing into it, funny given that he had a problem when Bush rushed into Iraq.
I swear, if you Americans drag us into another Middle-Eastern money sinkhole of a clusterfuck like you did with Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be hell to pay. Fight your own damn battles.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: nickiknack on August 31, 2013, 12:50:27 pm
I'm not in favor of going in to begin with, but going in alone is stupid, and is sure to end in a clusterfuck. But god forbid we wait for the UN or whatnot, no we have to jump the fucking gun in everything. Never said that I was in favor of going in, all I said it would better to do this as a joint effort if it does happen.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 31, 2013, 01:13:21 pm
I'm not in favor of going in to begin with, but going in alone is stupid, and is sure to end in a clusterfuck. But god forbid we wait for the UN or whatnot, no we have to jump the fucking gun in everything. Never said that I was in favor of going in, all I said it would better to do this as a joint effort if it does happen.
I know, but saying that you should at least get a coalition together first if you really must invade is my objection. Especially since my own government will probably be willing, assuming the conservatives win the next election (which they almost certainly will). It would be tantamount to a kick to the balls to drag us into another one of these clusterfucks right after we just got out of Iraq.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Auri-El on August 31, 2013, 02:16:08 pm
It is not our job to police the world. The only reason I can justify getting involved is if the fighting spreads to neighboring countries that want no part of it. Otherwise, it's an internal affair that Syria needs to deal with on its own.

This. We really need to stop interfering in other countries' affairs, using the excuse of "preventative measures." I mean, we're hardly a stellar example of obeying the United Nations. We have no right to attack other countries for doing the same things we've done, and we certainly don't need to jump in and try to stop them fighting among themselves. The double standard is infuriating.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: nickiknack on August 31, 2013, 02:32:40 pm
It is not our job to police the world. The only reason I can justify getting involved is if the fighting spreads to neighboring countries that want no part of it. Otherwise, it's an internal affair that Syria needs to deal with on its own.

This. We really need to stop interfering in other countries' affairs, using the excuse of "preventative measures." I mean, we're hardly a stellar example of obeying the United Nations. We have no right to attack other countries for doing the same things we've done, and we certainly don't need to jump in and try to stop them fighting among themselves. The double standard is infuriating.

That would require us not thinking that we're special, which isn't going to happen anytime soon, sadly.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on August 31, 2013, 02:36:16 pm
Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.

The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)

President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)

There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: nickiknack on August 31, 2013, 02:40:13 pm
Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.

The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)

President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)

There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.

And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on August 31, 2013, 02:48:22 pm
It's a civil war that's been going on for 3 years. It's already a clusterfuck, and there's been no interest in sending troops.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on August 31, 2013, 03:09:20 pm
If the West had intervened earlier, al-Nusra et al would never had gained the support they had.

Fuck yeah for this. We should have gone in at least a year ago.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on August 31, 2013, 04:31:10 pm
Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.

The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)

President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)

There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.

And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
I just realized what really bugged me about that argument. It's that regardless of what is or isn't done that argument can be used. You can use it for sending troops, you can use it for not sending troops. You can use it for making airstrikes, you can use it for not making airstrikes. You can use it for sending medical aide, you can use it for not sending medical aide. Anything can be criticized using this argument. In fact, you can even see it in this thread.

If the West had intervened earlier, al-Nusra et al would never had gained the support they had.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Old Viking on August 31, 2013, 05:04:52 pm
To reduce this to purely diplomatic terms, it's none of our goddamned business what they do to one another.  The Mideast has been characterized by mutual slaughter throughout history.  They're good at it.  They enjoy it.  Leave them alone.   Maybe if we looked real hard we could find some domestic problems to attend to.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on August 31, 2013, 05:42:38 pm
To reduce this to purely diplomatic terms, it's none of our goddamned business what they do to one another.  The Mideast has been characterized by mutual slaughter throughout history.  They're good at it.  They enjoy it.  Leave them alone.   Maybe if we looked real hard we could find some domestic problems to attend to.

Since 1917, absolutely.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on August 31, 2013, 05:58:37 pm
Go back further in history Fred.

Ironbite-people have been killing each other in that desert since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on August 31, 2013, 06:03:22 pm
Go back further in history Fred.

Ironbite-people have been killing each other in that desert since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.

What, and Europe wasn't a fucking bloodbath for about two thousand years?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on August 31, 2013, 06:12:55 pm
Go back further in history Fred.

Ironbite-people have been killing each other in that desert since we crawled out of the primordial ooze.

Absolutely. The Middle East of (say) 0 AD to 1916 was far less bloody than Europe or Asia in the same period, or Africa for that matter. Though the Ottomans and the Austrians fought a bunch of nasty conflicts in Europe, and also the Russians and the Ottomans, there were only a handful of wars fought internally within the Middle East, far fewer than in Europe. Almost all of them involve Persia and the Ottomans.

Obviously there was still crime and bad living conditions and such, but not a lot of organised violence. There has been a huge explosion in organised violence since 1917. Surprise surprise.

Clearly the answer is to recolonise the region.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on August 31, 2013, 06:49:43 pm
Fred I really do have to wonder where you get your history lessons then I remembered the stunt you tried to pull a while back.

Jesus fucking Christ. People will fight each other. It's not always the neighbor or not so neighbor's responsibility to stop it. At least not on their own. That causes trouble. But at the same time there's a fuckload wrong when most of the UN is too fucking scared to say boo to anything. In trying to prevent another war, you cause a worse one to come about. Maybe not immediately but if you don't nip something in the bud it'll just grow and grow until you can't just quickly cut it out.

Unfortunately when it comes to situations like this there are no real quick, easy solutions. And if people expect it they need to come back to planet Earth.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on August 31, 2013, 06:53:32 pm
Fred I really do have to wonder where you get your history lessons then I remembered the stunt you tried to pull a while back.

No argument?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 31, 2013, 10:45:02 pm
Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.

The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)

President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)

There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.

And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
Seeing as Russia and Iran are threatening to engage us/Israel if we make a move, fuck yeah there are going to be problems. Iran may not be in the best shape (thanks to our sanctions), but Russia can still fuck us up bad.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on August 31, 2013, 11:23:55 pm
I don't know how many of you knew this, but today was the Official Unofficial Protest War in Syria Day. Think Occupy 2.0, but somehow more impotent. I attended the San Diego rally out of mild interest and boredom, and I'm not entirely sure it was worth my afternoon.

To start off, just like the Occupy movement, there was not a very strong consensus as to the purpose of the rally (somehow 'No War in Syria' is not clear enough). There were asshats with anti-Monsanto, anti-GMO, and legalize weed signs, and this one lady who would not shut up about the "Zionist plot". This is why I hate left-leaning rallies; nobody can stick to one fucking subject as the source of their outrage. Everyone has to drag their pet project in to this. Hell, even the speakers couldn't stick to the topic without careening into "Legalize weed", "Release nonviolent (drug) offenders", or whatever else bullshit that isn't remotely related to bombing another country.

And the speakers. Oh my gods did these people piss me off. The first dude starts off with this dumbass, feelgood meditation (complete with a bell) to contemplate "the inner peace within our hearts". The rest were pretty much the same; liberal activists with the message that "war is bad" and other typical speeches that, while passionate, were rather light on solutions outside of more rallies and voting. There were a few, however, that were outright hilarious. A couple of them ran independent radio stations, cuz that's such an effective means of communication nowadays. One of them thought Secretary of State John Kerry, the same asshat that somehow lost to Bush in 2004, was the right man to patch up all the political turmoil in the Middle East. I have never wanted to hit someone so hard out of sheer disgust in my entire life.
This other dude had a major hardon for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was, I thought, a complete disgrace to the man's name. He spoke of the great accomplishments King managed as the civil rights leader, but has clearly failed to understand how much King had to suffer to make his dream a reality. I sincerely doubt anybody in that crowd realizes what we'll all have to go through to affect the change we desire. The only speaker I have some respect for is a woman who's part of some Muslim-American activist group, who has family in Syria. She had, hands down, the best grasp of the events in Syria, and made some of the best points of anyone all afternoon. Naturally, the local news stations who'd put their mics up on the podium, pulled said mics and promptly left when this woman started talking about how Obama's violating the Constitution. Talk about journalism, right?

While the overall message of these protests may be heard, if only because of their (inter)national scope, I sincerely doubt San Diego will be much help overall. The afternoon was filled with empty platitudes that solve nothing. Sure, most of the people there may feel better, and certainly gain a sense of accomplishment, but they're not going to be useful on their own. Waving signs at traffic (I swear to gods, that was the best idea they had) will solve nothing. These people have no interest in taking the kinds of drastic steps needed to be heard and obeyed. Like it or not, nothing will get done if our outrage is not feared in Washington; until the leaders have to start worrying about their careers, if not their well-being, they have no reason to listen to us.

Occupy proved that. Occupy had everyone in power scared. Even if the reaction was delayed, Wall St. was scared. The media and government paid attention. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people, gathered together in every major city across the country, forced the debate to shift in a direction we wanted it to go, and they did it by becoming the kind of nuisance that gets attention. These people put their lives on hold to send a message... and promptly forgot what that message was. Every asshat with an agenda tried to solve their pet problem, and the entire movement lost cohesion. All that political power, all that outrage, all that fear, completely wasted because those fools wouldn't accept leadership to rally them, or take more direct action than camping in the public square. The same people who set up Occupy San Diego are running this current movement; these morons will accomplish nothing.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 31, 2013, 11:55:35 pm
That's why leftists piss me off. More often then not, they have nothing to offer but platitudes, bleeding heart, feel good nonsense and pretty much everything else bar a practical solution or two, and then wonder why nobody takes them seriously. The idiots do more harm to their cause than the opposition ever could.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 01, 2013, 12:43:12 am
Every news article I've read, watched, or heard has made it clear that there's no interest in an invasion. What's being discussed is airstrikes like those conducted a few years ago in Libya.

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.

The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?hpid=z1)

President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0)

There's no plan to invade. These are just limited attacks that are supposed to show the world that the use of chemical weapons isn't condoned. The attacks probably won't do much of anything except deliver that message. I don't support it, but I understand the logic behind it. But damn people, pay attention to the news.

And what's not to say it will turn into a clusterfuck somewhere down the road where troops are sent in, and we're bogged down for years to come.
Seeing as Russia and Iran are threatening to engage us/Israel if we make a move, fuck yeah there are going to be problems. Iran may not be in the best shape (thanks to our sanctions), but Russia can still fuck us up bad.
Which is why we ought to get Turkey involved. Then if Russia tries anything, we lock down the Bosphorus.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 01, 2013, 12:56:13 am
That's why leftists piss me off. More often then not, they have nothing to offer but platitudes, bleeding heard, feel good nonsense and pretty much everything else bar a practical solution or two, and then wonder why nobody takes them seriously. The idiots do more harm to their cause than the opposition ever could.
I am seriously tempted to attend the next rally so I can hijack the podium and point this out.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 01, 2013, 01:19:54 am
Well here's a fun story that just happened. Me and my little brother had just pulled in to our driveway on the way back from going to pick up food for dinner and he gets oout to open the gate. Once he gets out I'm fiddling with buttons trying to figure out how to turn off the light I accidentally turned on earlier. In the process I hit a button that changes the radio station to Dan Savage's Savage Nation.

Oh boy, I think I lost noticeable brain mass from that minute of listening to it. He said Something to the effect of -

 "I've been watching the BBC and they're reporting what the American news stations won't, that US warships have been sighted of the coast of Iceland (I think that's what he said) on their way to Syria. Obama's going to strike Syria in the night while Americans are too busy partying to care!

Obama needs to be impeached. He should be dragged before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague! These are definitely war crimes he's committing! He's attacking Syria after they used chemicals once! The recent attack hasn't even been confirmed and it's probably the rebels!

This is nothing like the Holocaust. Even if it was it would be like bombing the trains of prisoners to stop it!"

At this point my little brother was getting back in the car and I promptly shut the radio off, both because I couldn't listen to it anymore and because I didn't want to expose my little brother to the concentrated stupid that was spewed forth.

The only positive thing I have to say about Michael Savage is that he at least also opposed the Iraq War, so he's consistent here.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 01, 2013, 02:54:53 am
On another forum, they had a fairly comprehensive poll regarding what to do in Syria. 10% thought we should intervene... to help Assad.

If I were a US soldier who was told that I would be going in to support the Assad regime, I'd quit immediately.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Valerius on September 01, 2013, 03:13:11 am
The hell kinda forum was that?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 01, 2013, 03:41:41 am
www.nationstates.net

It's actually a fairly liberal forum. But during the summer, we get a deluge of right-wing nutjobs (probably just kids who think fascism is cool). Also, the forum population is very high, so we get people from all over the world.

There have been some posts on the old mainpage from there.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 04:28:49 am
It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.

(http://www.cnn.com/video/world/2011/03/24/jamjoom.syria.violence.cnn.640x360.jpg)
Just keep walking

It's simple to turn a blind eye to Syria. After all, they're far away. If we ignore it, Iran and Russia stay put, and no Americans die. After all, Americans are the only human beings that matter, right? Sure, those foreigners are dying, but they're not Americans, so who cares? It's the American lives that matter the most.

(click to show/hide)

Who cares if thousands of Syrians are dying? They have no affect on our lives, so why should we care? Besides, if we go in, we might anger Iran and Russia. We don't want to anger an oppressive dictatorship and what is quickly becoming another oppressive dictatorship in the vein of 1930s Germany. We should appease them, instead. That has a great historical track record! Yes, we should leave Syria to die. At least no Americans are dying.

(http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/REU-SYRIA-CRISIS-61-760x506.jpg)
Don't worry, he's not American!

For those who ate bricks as children, that was a pile of sarcasm. They are human fucking beings. Each day we leave other human beings to die because we only give a shit if the dead people are American is another day we are guilty of both murder and some of the most sickening racism in decades. We're leaving people to die for the crime of not being Americans. That's so much better than going to war, right?

The truth is, war is sometimes the answer. Besides for "Well, money" or "Well, they ain't 'Muricans!", the biggest argument I've heard for not getting involved is "Well, it will piss Russia off". Here's the thing. Appeasement does not work in the long run. If Obama does not get involved, he will be remembered as the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st Century. The man who could have saved millions, and stopped everything before it started, but he was too fucking scared of war to get involved, and wanted to try to create peace. Guess what? Russia isn't interested in peace. They want power, not peace. Do you think they give a rat's ass about what we want? They want a return to the days where they were the other superpower. They want to be on top of the world again. And they're being run by a charismatic leader who can convince the Russian people that the problem lies in minorities. Look at what they are doing to the gays. Do you think that's all that will happen? Fuck no. Call Godwin's law. As far as I'm concerned, that will just show you are a moron. Here's some history.

Quote from: Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

So, yes we should get involved. They are human beings. We have an arsenal big enough to fight the entire planet. We have an obligation to save those that are being murdered, or we are just as guilty of killing them. If Russia decides to escalate it, good. They're not ready yet. They will not win. And, it won't go nuclear. People aren't that insane, no matter how paranoid everyone is.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Valerius on September 01, 2013, 04:37:09 am
Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 04:38:57 am
Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?
I apologize for having a differing opinion. I forgot that conformity is required. Wait, no, I don't give a shit if people don't like that I don't agree with them. Still, it's going to be seriously interesting to see how people can spin "All humans are equal" into being a racist statement.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Valerius on September 01, 2013, 04:47:42 am
Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?
I apologize for having a differing opinion. I forgot that conformity is required. Wait, no, I don't give a shit if people don't like that I don't agree with them.

It's not that I don't like that you disagree with the majority opinion, it's that A) we just had this debate, and B) everyone else's criticisms apparently didn't change your views whatsoever, so trying to revive this freshly-dead debate serves no purpose other than stirring shit up purely for the sake of stirring shit up. I love heated debates (even if I don't participate much), but this I find to be childishly annoying.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 04:56:47 am
Are you seriously trying to stir up more of the same shit you started in the "Fairly substantial massacre in Egypt." thread?
I apologize for having a differing opinion. I forgot that conformity is required. Wait, no, I don't give a shit if people don't like that I don't agree with them.

It's not that I don't like that you disagree with the majority opinion, it's that A) we just had this debate, and B) everyone else's criticisms apparently didn't change your views whatsoever, so trying to revive this freshly-dead debate serves no purpose other than stirring shit up purely for the sake of stirring shit up. I love heated debates (even if I don't participate much), but this I find to be childishly annoying.
This is slightly different, with it being Syria instead of Egypt. Additionally, this time we're mixing in the Russia stuff as well, which is another thing that's been being debated. It's not the same thing, and in this case, I'm talking more Syria than the Middle East on a whole. Also, I've hopefully made it clear enough that it's not about race, so perhaps we'll hear better arguments rather than "That's racist!" repeatedly. I'll gladly debate this is people will stop with the bullshit calls of racism, and the attempts to prevent discussion via misuse of Godwin's Law (it's supposed to be used when you call someone a Nazi for disagreeing on the Internet, not used when a nation is systematically oppressing people and has a charismatic, power hungry leader and a nation that has seen better days but remembers and desires its former glory).
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 01, 2013, 05:14:19 am
So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 05:16:41 am
So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?
I could have sworn I already addressed the second point in the big post I made on this thread. Money is not as important as human lives. Additionally, I don't remember Iraq using chemical warfare on their citizens. Syria is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Valerius on September 01, 2013, 05:20:05 am
This is slightly different, with it being Syria instead of Egypt.

Your argument in the Egypt thread was that the entire Middle East should be occupied. Since Syria and Egypt are both part of the Middle East, this distinction is irrelevant.

Additionally, this time we're mixing in the Russia stuff as well, which is another thing that's been being debated.

Yeah, but so far, your argument seems to be the same as in the Egypt thread, but with "Problem, Russia? Then fuck you!" tacked on. In other words, when Russia is considered as well, your position is still basically unchanged.

It's not the same thing, and in this case, I'm talking more Syria than the Middle East on a whole.

How is it not the same thing? It's the same "They're too barbaric to deal with their own shit, so we need to forcibly do it for them." argument, just used on slightly smaller scale.

Also, I've hopefully made it clear enough that it's not about race, so perhaps we'll hear better arguments rather than "That's racist!" repeatedly. I'll gladly debate this is people will stop with the bullshit calls of racism, and the attempts to prevent discussion via misuse of Godwin's Law (it's supposed to be used when you call someone a Nazi for disagreeing on the Internet, not used when a nation is systematically oppressing people and has a charismatic, power hungry leader and a nation that has seen better days but remembers and desires its former glory).

The first several pages of the first debate had lots of very good arguments that didn't amount to "You're being racist!" You seem to be choosing to ignore them. I somewhat agree with you about the arguments of "That's racist!" and the overuse of Godwin's Law, but starting this debate over again without those two things is still just stirring shit up for its own sake.

The last argument was basically you being a blind idealist without any thought towards pragmatism, followed by everyone else pointing out why this is bad as well arguing ideologically, and concluded by you ignoring everyone. If this turns into another debate, then I predict that this'll play out exactly the same.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 01, 2013, 05:49:02 am
So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?
I could have sworn I already addressed the second point in the big post I made on this thread. Money is not as important as human lives. Additionally, I don't remember Iraq using chemical warfare on their citizens. Syria is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tell that to the people who'll end up losing their livelihood because the entire economy was run into the ground over your little crusade, or the soldiers who're dying for it. Not to mention, what about the first point? That occupation will only make things worse? How about you actually address that one, hmm?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 06:00:24 am
So I suppose when people point out that such an occupation will do far more harm than good to the locals (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and be a huge burden on an economy that's only just beginning to recover from a huge recession (again, like Iraq and Afghanistan), you're just going to ignore it like last time, right?
I could have sworn I already addressed the second point in the big post I made on this thread. Money is not as important as human lives. Additionally, I don't remember Iraq using chemical warfare on their citizens. Syria is not the same as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tell that to the people who'll end up losing their livelihood because the entire economy was run into the ground over your little crusade, or the soldiers who're dying for it. Not to mention, what about the first point? That occupation will only make things worse? How about you actually address that one, hmm?
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things. Also, if I remember correctly, it was the unregulated madness of Wall Street that ruined the economy moreso than anything else. Now, the American government's debt comes from our wars, that is true. Additionally, regarding the soldiers, there it is again. The soldiers lives are more important than the civilians lives. Why? Soldiers die or civilians die. One of them signed up knowing the risks. Anyone in the American military now knew what they were getting into. It's not like people who signed up in 2000 and got thrown in. People signing up now were elementary schoolers when 9/11 happened. They know they're signing up in a dangerous time. Civilians, meanwhile, never were given another option. They were forced into this shit. If anything, risking the lives of those who agreed to save the lives of those who did not is the just thing, not letting people who never had another option die because people who didn't have to sign up weren't sent.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 01, 2013, 06:17:05 am
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things.
Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation just makes things worse, that's been proven time and time again by history. Extremism goes through the fucking roof because, surprise surprise, people generally don't like foreign occupiers. Doesn't matter if it's out of colonial greed or an asininely naive white knight complex, they just don't take kindly to it. That's largely why Baghdad and Kabul are a lot more explodey right now than they were before the Americans had their way with the country.
Also, if I remember correctly, it was the unregulated madness of Wall Street that ruined the economy moreso than anything else. Now, the American government's debt comes from our wars, that is true.
I'm not saying they caused the recession, I'm saying additional wars and with it even more skyrocketing debt will make lead to a crash that makes the current recession seem like a minor hiccup,
Additionally, regarding the soldiers, there it is again. The soldiers lives are more important than the civilians lives. Why? Soldiers die or civilians die. One of them signed up knowing the risks. Anyone in the American military now knew what they were getting into. It's not like people who signed up in 2000 and got thrown in. People signing up now were elementary schoolers when 9/11 happened. They know they're signing up in a dangerous time. Civilians, meanwhile, never were given another option. They were forced into this shit. If anything, risking the lives of those who agreed to save the lives of those who did not is the just thing, not letting people who never had another option die because people who didn't have to sign up weren't sent.
Just because their job is risky is not a valid excuse to get them killed in a poorly thought out invasion. And yes, because they are American, the American government has an actual responsibility to keep them as safe as possible (naturally, this applies to other nationalities just as much). Foreigners, not so much. They're the responsibility of their own government. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe in this incredibly bleeding heart and impractical mindset of yours, that's the reality of it. A government's obligation is to its citizens. As long as there is poverty, violence and other issues at home, the government has no business playing world police.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Yla on September 01, 2013, 06:23:12 am
In the other thread, PHH argued for a blanket long-term occupation and nation-building.
Here he argues for a intervention of unspecified scope to stop ongoing atrocities.

Yes, that's totally the same thing. Aims, scale, scope, nope. They have a common element, so they're the same.[/sarcasm]


It's not that I don't like that you disagree with the majority opinion, it's that A) we just had this debate, and B) everyone else's criticisms apparently didn't change your views whatsoever, so trying to revive this freshly-dead debate serves no purpose other than stirring shit up purely for the sake of stirring shit up. I love heated debates (even if I don't participate much), but this I find to be childishly annoying.
It would not stir up the freshly-dead debate if you wouldn't divert to it. Every one of your arguments in this
post is making comparisons to the other thread and trying to equalize the both. You are strawmanning PHH's current arguments into his old ones.



Fred I really do have to wonder where you get your history lessons then I remembered the stunt you tried to pull a while back.
Why, is he wrong? Evidence please, instead of a generalized 'people will always fight each other'.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Auri-El on September 01, 2013, 06:33:57 am
PHH, why is the Middle East catching your attention so strongly? Subsaharan Africa has war, poverty, epidemic, famine. Southeast Asia has plenty of problems. South America. There's human trafficking going on all over the world. There's always people dying from preventable diseases, from war or starvation. Here in the U.S., we have plenty of problems, with poverty, and health-related issues. So, yes, the Middle East is particularly unstable right now. But. As long as their war stays within their own borders, it's none of our business. There are too many problems, both in America and all over the world, problems that we can actually do something about, without making even more people hate us. It's not that "oh, they're not Americans, so they don't matter." It's, why are we doing this AGAIN? Why are we intervening in another country's affairs against their wishes, AGAIN? Why are we acting like the world police, AGAIN? THAT'S why I oppose military intervention in Syria.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 06:43:28 am
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things.
Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation just makes things worse, that's been proven time and time again by history. Extremism goes through the fucking roof because, surprise surprise, people generally don't like foreign occupiers. Doesn't matter if it's out of colonial greed or an asininely naive white knight complex, they just don't take kindly to it. That's largely why Baghdad and Kabul are a lot more explodey right now than they were before the Americans had their way with the country.

I'd say things are better than they were, actually. Terrorism is still an issue, true, but Saddam was in fact a bad person, and had more than a few screws loose. I'd say that while things certainly could have gone better, and the way things were done was horrid, things are actually looking up. Al-Qaeda is in shambles, real equality progress is being made, and there's one less psychotic dictator in the world.

Also, if I remember correctly, it was the unregulated madness of Wall Street that ruined the economy moreso than anything else. Now, the American government's debt comes from our wars, that is true.
I'm not saying they caused the recession, I'm saying additional wars and with it even more skyrocketing debt will make lead to a crash that makes the current recession seem like a minor hiccup.

Ahem, proof?

Additionally, regarding the soldiers, there it is again. The soldiers lives are more important than the civilians lives. Why? Soldiers die or civilians die. One of them signed up knowing the risks. Anyone in the American military now knew what they were getting into. It's not like people who signed up in 2000 and got thrown in. People signing up now were elementary schoolers when 9/11 happened. They know they're signing up in a dangerous time. Civilians, meanwhile, never were given another option. They were forced into this shit. If anything, risking the lives of those who agreed to save the lives of those who did not is the just thing, not letting people who never had another option die because people who didn't have to sign up weren't sent.
Just because their job is risky is not a valid excuse to get them killed in a poorly thought out invasion. And yes, because they are American, the American government has an actual responsibility to keep them as safe as possible (naturally, this applies to other nationalities just as much). Foreigners, not so much. They're the responsibility of their own government. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe in this incredibly bleeding heart and impractical mindset of yours, that's the reality of it. A government's obligation is to its citizens. As long as there is poverty, violence and other issues at home, the government has no business playing world police.
There will always be poverty, violence and other issues here. World peace is impossible with humans in control. Also, it's only poorly thought out if you don't, well, think it out. With good planning, it's not poorly thought out. Additionally, I'd say that that is in fact the racist mindset. No group of people should be more important than others due to their nationality. In the end, one group signed up for the job whose description involves shitty conditions and a high chance of bullet-related problems. The others were born in a bad place. One asked to be put in these situations, whether due to needing the military to pay for school, tradition, patriotism or sheer sociopathy, and the other did not. We spend more money on our military than is even remotely sane. To horde that power and let others die when they don't have to and never asked to be put in that situation is immoral as a fat man hoarding food and letting people starve to death.

PHH, why is the Middle East catching your attention so strongly? Subsaharan Africa has war, poverty, epidemic, famine. Southeast Asia has plenty of problems. South America. There's human trafficking going on all over the world. There's always people dying from preventable diseases, from war or starvation. Here in the U.S., we have plenty of problems, with poverty, and health-related issues. So, yes, the Middle East is particularly unstable right now. But. As long as their war stays within their own borders, it's none of our business. There are too many problems, both in America and all over the world, problems that we can actually do something about, without making even more people hate us. It's not that "oh, they're not Americans, so they don't matter." It's, why are we doing this AGAIN? Why are we intervening in another country's affairs against their wishes, AGAIN? Why are we acting like the world police, AGAIN? THAT'S why I oppose military intervention in Syria.
Well, we're discussing the Middle East. That's why it's what I discuss. Although not on here, I've expressed the thought that what we're doing elsewhere, especially Africa, is pointless and actually harms them, because the aid we send to Africa gets taken by warlords, making them more powerful. Additionally, we feel that there is too many problems in America because we're used to less problems. Most of the world would take all of our problems over their own problems. Also, the government of that nation is evil. I think oppressive dictators can be described as evil. It does not matter what the government of Syria wants, because, well, of course they want us to stay away. They're the bad guys here. The way I see it, the more fortunate have the obligation, not just the ability or the opportunity, but the obligation, to help the more downtrodden. I view it the same way as raising taxes on the rich. They should be required to give more to help others, because they have more to give. That goes for the first world in general, when compared to the third world, too. As a nation with the ability to remove the murderous dictatorship in charge and save thousands, we have an obligation to do so. We have the ability to help, and so, we must.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 01, 2013, 06:52:10 am
It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.

I agree that something beneficial should be done. Please identify something beneficial that could be done.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 06:58:58 am
It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.

I agree that something beneficial should be done. Please identify something beneficial that could be done.
We disagree on what would be beneficial. I think removing the madman launching chemical weapons at his own people would be beneficial. Somehow, you do not.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 01, 2013, 07:05:46 am
Which madman though.

Ironbite-there's more then one.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 07:07:19 am
Which madman though.

Ironbite-there's more then one.
Well, what I'm currently talking about is the government of Syria. They're the prime issue.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 01, 2013, 07:09:25 am
It's rather hard to address the future. Without seeing the results, you can't really say things will be worse. But, if you want my opinion on it, I doubt they will be, mainly because we won't be using chemical weapons, and civil wars are generally less stable than other things.
Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation just makes things worse, that's been proven time and time again by history. Extremism goes through the fucking roof because, surprise surprise, people generally don't like foreign occupiers. Doesn't matter if it's out of colonial greed or an asininely naive white knight complex, they just don't take kindly to it. That's largely why Baghdad and Kabul are a lot more explodey right now than they were before the Americans had their way with the country.

I'd say things are better than they were, actually. Terrorism is still an issue, true, but Saddam was in fact a bad person, and had more than a few screws loose. I'd say that while things certainly could have gone better, and the way things were done was horrid, things are actually looking up. Al-Qaeda is in shambles, real equality progress is being made, and there's one less psychotic dictator in the world.

Much worse, sadly.

It's quite easy to say we shouldn't intervene from the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and first world living conditions. It's quite easy for us to say "Stay out of it!" when we're not affected by that, only by going in. It's quite easy to say we should sit back when that's the beneficial option for us.

I agree that something beneficial should be done. Please identify something beneficial that could be done.
We disagree on what would be beneficial. I think removing the madman launching chemical weapons at his own people would be beneficial. Somehow, you do not.

I agree that Asad should be gone, all else being equal (so do most Syrians). I don't agree that Asad should be gone at all costs. Now, you posted a bunch of photos of dying children; that's great, but if we want to reduce the number of dead children, bombing isn't going to do it.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 01, 2013, 07:29:42 am
I'd say things are better than they were, actually. Terrorism is still an issue, true, but Saddam was in fact a bad person, and had more than a few screws loose. I'd say that while things certainly could have gone better, and the way things were done was horrid, things are actually looking up. Al-Qaeda is in shambles, real equality progress is being made, and there's one less psychotic dictator in the world.
Under Saddam, the economy was actually haflway stable and basic utilities such as electricity and water were reliable. Since the Americans moved in, the economy went down the shitter, utilities were non-existent for a while due to the initial invasion basically flattening the place and while those issues aren't as bad as they used to be (though not as good as they were before the US occupation), the place is about as safe as an active volcano. While the rather frequent IUDs and firefights may be specifically targetting American soldiers, let's just say that collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties isn't exactly a once in a lifetime event.
Ahem, proof?
Quote from: Wikipedia
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.
Remember, Iraq and Afghanistan both are rather small countries, and America's total GDP is around $16 trillion (and that's GDP, i.e. the value of the entire economy, tax revenue is a fraction of that and military spending a fraction of that fraction). You want to occupy every country in the world with anything less than first world living conditions? Yeah, you can probably get a rough idea of how well that'll work.
There will always be poverty, violence and other issues here. World peace is impossible with humans in control. Also, it's only poorly thought out if you don't, well, think it out. With good planning, it's not poorly thought out. Additionally, I'd say that that is in fact the racist mindset. No group of people should be more important than others due to their nationality.
Racist? What exactly does it have to do with a person's race? Words have meaning, pal, don't misuse them for a cheap ad hom if you want to be taken seriously. Also, note that I didn't say one group is more important in an absolute sense than another, what I said is, from the perspective of any given government, it's citizens are more important than non-citizens. This isn't unique to Americans. Americans are no more entitled to aid from the Italian government than Italians are to aid from the American government. I know, you want us all to be the white knights of the world, saving the oppressed and downtrodden of the world from their shitty situation. However, that's simply not feasible. Resources are limited, even to the west, and domestic problems, contrary to what you're implying, are not trivial. Again, the government has no business spending its citizen's tax dollars on foreigners when there are plenty of unsolved domestic issues that negatively affect said citizens to deal with.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 01, 2013, 10:17:11 am
My opposition to intervening in Syria has less to do with "who cares?" and more to do with we can't afford it, several nations have declared that they will retaliate, it's not our issue, and this kind of bloody civil war is what every nation goes through on its way to maturity. The Syrian people need to be able to reset their own game board, free of outside interference and meddling. It's brutal and horrific, and that is only made worse by modern weaponry, but it's something that they need to go through as a nation. The rest of the region started down that path with the Arab Spring; it just so happens that Syria's internal conflict is much, much more violent than the other uprisings.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on September 01, 2013, 10:31:59 am
PHH in one thread you agreed that people need to learn from history. Here's your chance to actually do that. Go read about Middle East history and pay particular attention to what happened when new governments were setup or overthrown by western countries. Here's a hint, it's never worked well.

You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.

Stop with the appeals to emotion and being naive enough to think we don't know what war looks like. We know that people are dying and being injured in terrible ways. No one likes that people are suffering and dying, but there's really no good ways to help beyond what's already being done(the US has been giving the rebels non-lethal aide in the form of MREs and medical supplies). An important life lesson is that there are times when you can't do anything. It does suck to be impotent like that, but you have to learn to deal with it.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on September 01, 2013, 10:32:37 am
okay posthuman yes Iraq is more stable now but u know how many people wouldnt have died if we stayed out of there 1.2 million
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 01, 2013, 01:23:04 pm

You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.

As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Yla on September 01, 2013, 01:28:45 pm
(the US has been giving the rebels non-lethal aide in the form of MREs and medical supplies)
Little of which appears to arrive at the point where it is needed, from what I've been hearing.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on September 01, 2013, 01:46:26 pm

You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.

As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
I know there won't be boots on the ground. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I'm just not convinced that a limited missile strike will accomplish much. Everything I've read about it makes it seem like a show of force to say that the use of chemical weapons won't be condoned. As opposed to something that would do something other than deliver a message.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 01, 2013, 02:37:11 pm

You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.

As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
I know there won't be boots on the ground. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I'm just not convinced that a limited missile strike will accomplish much. Everything I've read about it makes it seem like a show of force to say that the use of chemical weapons won't be condoned. As opposed to something that would do something other than deliver a message.
I'm in favor of a Libyan-style bombing campaign, designed to cripple Assad's military. And we should try to nail the bastard if we can.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 03:10:10 pm
(the US has been giving the rebels non-lethal aide in the form of MREs and medical supplies)
Little of which appears to arrive at the point where it is needed, from what I've been hearing.
Aid pretty much never, ever, ever, ever does.


You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.

As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
I know there won't be boots on the ground. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I'm just not convinced that a limited missile strike will accomplish much. Everything I've read about it makes it seem like a show of force to say that the use of chemical weapons won't be condoned. As opposed to something that would do something other than deliver a message.
I'm in favor of a Libyan-style bombing campaign, designed to cripple Assad's military. And we should try to nail the bastard if we can.
At the very least, this. It'll make everyone who values American lives over everyone elses' happy because we could just use drones, and it will at least do something.


You say that we can't know what would happen if the Syrian government is overthrown. That's true, we can't know with 100% certainty. However, we can infer what is likely to happen from the past, and it doesn't look good. Unless you like insurgencies and terrorism. Given that your argument is the government needs to be overthrown to save lives you shouldn't support something that will lead to loss of more life.

As opposed to the loss of life currently happening? If no one from the outside intervenes, this war will grind on for years. Either Assad will finally collapse, or he'll just gas most of his citizens. A quick US intervention - just airstrikes and missiles, no boots on the ground - will help bring Assad down much more quickly. It's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we have. Every option, especially doing nothing, will end with a lot of dead people. Intervening will at least help to limit the number of dead people.
Agreed with the fact that it's not going to end anytime soon. Either a revolution is swift and decapitates the leadership, or it grinds on for eternity. There's no middle ground.

okay posthuman yes Iraq is more stable now but u know how many people wouldnt have died if we stayed out of there 1.2 million
In the long run, how many more would have died with we stayed out?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on September 01, 2013, 03:25:52 pm
Nowhere near 1.2 million  ::)
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 03:26:52 pm
Nowhere near 1.2 million  ::)
Over time, yes. Because over time, with all the people being killed by persecution and Saddam, it would easily hit 1.2 million.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on September 01, 2013, 03:31:43 pm
thats 5% of their population
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Yla on September 01, 2013, 03:37:11 pm
No, the only realistic way Saddam Hussein would have been responsible for that many deaths past 2003 would be if he had started another war.
Shave a zero off and we're at a believable number.

Victim calculus is a morbid branch of mathematics. Brr.

It's easy to condemn this as speculation, but that's what we have to do. Which path is likely to incur more or less sorrow and death? In Iraq, in Libya, and in Syria.


Edit: The 1.2 million number was suspect to me and I looked into it. There is one survey which arrived at >1m deaths, but it's a rather large outlier. Most countings arrive at somewhere between 100k and 250k.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Vypernight on September 01, 2013, 03:56:07 pm
My opposition to intervening in Syria has less to do with "who cares?" and more to do with we can't afford it, several nations have declared that they will retaliate, it's not our issue, and this kind of bloody civil war is what every nation goes through on its way to maturity. The Syrian people need to be able to reset their own game board, free of outside interference and meddling. It's brutal and horrific, and that is only made worse by modern weaponry, but it's something that they need to go through as a nation. The rest of the region started down that path with the Arab Spring; it just so happens that Syria's internal conflict is much, much more violent than the other uprisings.

Agreed.  I see nothing good coming out of this for anyone on any side if we step in.  At the most, drop a few bombs (as long as they hit the right people), but keep our troops out of it!  We don't need another Iraq/Afganistan.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 01, 2013, 04:08:37 pm
No, the only realistic way Saddam Hussein would have been responsible for that many deaths past 2003 would be if he had started another war.
Shave a zero off and we're at a believable number.

Victim calculus is a morbid branch of mathematics. Brr.

It's easy to condemn this as speculation, but that's what we have to do. Which path is likely to incur more or less sorrow and death? In Iraq, in Libya, and in Syria.


Edit: The 1.2 million number was suspect to me and I looked into it. There is one survey which arrived at >1m deaths, but it's a rather large outlier. Most countings arrive at somewhere between 100k and 250k.
Well, I was talking more from 2003 to now, to the future, to whoever took over for him and so on. And, yeah, it was suspect to me too, but I didn't feel like getting accused of avoiding shit. With 100 to 250 thousand, we certainly saved more than we killed or lost.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 01, 2013, 05:14:05 pm
Nowhere near 1.2 million  ::)
Over time, yes. Because over time, with all the people being killed by persecution and Saddam, it would easily hit 1.2 million.

That's 1.2 million excess deaths. Meaning, all the people who would have died of persecution or starvation under Saddam, plus 1.2 million.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on September 01, 2013, 05:28:19 pm
*glances over the thread*

Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mellenORL on September 01, 2013, 11:15:26 pm
Meh, try Assad for crimes against humanity in the world court, and when he's found guilty, just put up a totally amazing, awe inspiring one billion dollar bounty on his head. He'll be gone in a week. Much cheaper, less collateral damage. I'm sort of not even kidding. Wishful thinking, though. Heck, one of the wealthier Arab League reps would probably volunteer the entire billion bucks, himself. Assad is not respected in the ME, at all.

I'm so sick of endless war. It's a surgical missile strike that they have in mind, but that is a gateway drug to more and more abuse of civvies and NATO soldiers.

Back to the numbers game speculation thing...Saddam Hussein was in fact in process of going down the primrose genocide path by attacks, including chemical, on Kurdish towns throughout the north, and systematically destroying the wetlands that the marsh Arabs lived in for thousands of years. He and his fucking boys needed to go, but I definitely wish it had been a bounty head hunter offer there too, instead of ten years of invader occupation warfare. Halliburton and Blackwater sure enjoyed it, though.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 02, 2013, 01:42:58 am
*glances over the thread*

Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?

For the last time...

WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!

No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Alehksunos on September 02, 2013, 01:49:07 am
I can't believe I haven't freaked out when our nation had agreed to launch missiles and airstrikes to Syria. I did last year in response to the threats from Mitt Romney in response to the killing of American diplomats in response to The Innocence of Muslims.

(I can't remember all the things said there then, so forgive me.)
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on September 02, 2013, 12:10:48 pm
*glances over the thread*

Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?

For the last time...

WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!

No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 02, 2013, 01:49:01 pm
*glances over the thread*

Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?

For the last time...

WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!

No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.

Thank you. Apology accepted. I was just getting tired of people saying that we were going to invade, or that it would inevitably lead to invasion. We didn't end up invading Libya, did we?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on September 02, 2013, 05:52:54 pm
*glances over the thread*

Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?

For the last time...

WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!

No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.

Thank you. Apology accepted. I was just getting tired of people saying that we were going to invade, or that it would inevitably lead to invasion. We didn't end up invading Libya, did we?
No, we merely bombed the living hell outta them, which is precisely what we'll do here if the position of U.S. warships is any indication. Obama learned some things from Bush, namely that one needn't use "boots on the ground" to destroy a nation.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 02, 2013, 07:06:23 pm
*glances over the thread*

Anyone else having flashbacks to 2002? Yeah I guess not. Anyway, let's invade! What could possibly go wrong?

For the last time...

WE ARE NOT INVADING SYRIA!

No one has said ONE WORD about sending troops in. We are talking about missiles and airstrikes. Nothing more. Just like Libya.
My mistake. Let's go with the slightly less stupid plan. Apologies all around.

Thank you. Apology accepted. I was just getting tired of people saying that we were going to invade, or that it would inevitably lead to invasion. We didn't end up invading Libya, did we?

First time a pilot goes down- and a whole bunch of them are, by the way; the Syrians really know how to do goddamn air defence- the US sends in a helicopter with a bunch of ninjas aboard to pick him up. Then one of them gets shot down. You now have boots on the ground.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 02, 2013, 07:15:10 pm
Actually, from what I've heard, we're mostly going with missiles, probably due to the aforementioned Syrian AA. And there's always the Israeli option.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mellenORL on September 02, 2013, 07:32:29 pm
Yeah they're talking guided or self guiding cruise missiles, which would launch from a ship, hundreds of miles off from the target. Tomahawks are huge missiles. Collateral damage is unavoidable. Innocents will die. 'Swhy I was only half kidding about putting out a one billion dollar "wanted dead" poster on Assad's head. The idea being that local Syrian snipers would try it, a billion bucks being more than enough to tempt even Assad's own praetorian guard.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 02, 2013, 07:48:27 pm
Actually, from what I've heard, we're mostly going with missiles, probably due to the aforementioned Syrian AA. And there's always the Israeli option.

If it's a no-fly zone they're after, they're flying jets. If they're only launching missiles, that would be a fairly puny punitive strike. Short-term, too.

I would assume that it's likely to go like this:

H-hour: every airport in the country is blown to pieces by a tomahawk. Every known flak, radar or heat-seeking AAA gets a tomahawk. Following close on is a wave of 150-200 SEAD jets (including support aircraft and such). Everything still emitting radiation gets a HARM, then a JDAM.

H-hour +1: some left-over jets drop the occasional bomb right on ole Bashar's head. They miss a bunch of times. Eventually they don't miss.

H-Hour +2: Rebels ring up the US, "we have some armour kicking our arse at XYZ". XYZ explodes.

H-Hour +3: a radar anywhere in Syria turns on. It is instantly blown to pieces (HARM, JDAM).

Rinse, repeat.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 02, 2013, 08:05:57 pm
Actually, from what I've heard, we're mostly going with missiles, probably due to the aforementioned Syrian AA. And there's always the Israeli option.

If it's a no-fly zone they're after, they're flying jets. If they're only launching missiles, that would be a fairly puny punitive strike. Short-term, too.

I would assume that it's likely to go like this:

H-hour: every airport in the country is blown to pieces by a tomahawk. Every known flak, radar or heat-seeking AAA gets a tomahawk. Following close on is a wave of 150-200 SEAD jets (including support aircraft and such). Everything still emitting radiation gets a HARM, then a JDAM.

H-hour +1: some left-over jets drop the occasional bomb right on ole Bashar's head. They miss a bunch of times. Eventually they don't miss.

H-Hour +2: Rebels ring up the US, "we have some armour kicking our arse at XYZ". XYZ explodes.

H-Hour +3: a radar anywhere in Syria turns on. It is instantly blown to pieces (HARM, JDAM).

Rinse, repeat.
At some point in there, Russia and Iran make good on their threats to retaliate. America (and Israeli) forces defend themselves. International shitstorm ensues.

Hello WWIII.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 02, 2013, 08:14:49 pm
Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base. For Iran it's a bigger deal: Syria is their only friend in the world, and it's about to get bombed flat. But think about WHY Iran is friends with Syria (and Hezbollah). It's deterrence. They're afraid of potential US invasion of their country, and rightly so- the US has been highly belligerent towards Iran. Now, why would you make certain the outcome you want to avoid in order to defend the tools you want to use to avoid it?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Canadian Mojo on September 02, 2013, 08:37:12 pm
So I guess we've exchanged white man's burden for first world man's burden.



Have any of you asked yourselves why the U.S. tipped its hand so blatantly and so early? I mean now Assad is just going to scatter and hide all his high value military targets in deep dark little holes in out of the way places instead of on the front lines where they are easy to hit...


...oh, wait.  ::)



Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.

I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 02, 2013, 08:43:30 pm
Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.

I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.

There is no obligation on Russia to use force in defence of Syrians. There is indeed an obligation on Obama to use force if the Russians use force in defence of the Syrians. If the Russians launch an attack on the US fleet, the US will retaliate, 100%. The Russians know this. They also know how much force Obama can drop on their heads. Therefore, the Russians will not launch an attack.


Now, I think this is still stupid. Any strike on Syria will kill loads of Syrians. It will not save them, it will kill them. US credibility is not on the line: the US has, in the last decade, shown it will use force whenever it goddamn pleases, there is no need for a future demonstration. Furthermore, there is no international norm against chemical weapons use. The US government used banned chemical weapons in Fallujah without bombing Washington or arresting anyone (also, Saddam, too).
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 02, 2013, 08:44:38 pm
Fun update time! The USS Nimitz Carrier Group has been rerouted from Seattle to the Red Sea (http://rt.com/news/us-aircraft-carrier-red-sea-286/). That fleet includes the USS Nimitz (duh), four destroyers, and a cruiser. This is addition to the amphibious transport ship USS San Antonio, which was rerouted to the US naval base at Crete with "no specific orders". Oh yes, we are so not going to flatten another country... >.>

So I guess we've exchanged white man's burden for first world man's burden.



Have any of you asked yourselves why the U.S. tipped its hand so blatantly and so early? I mean now Assad is just going to scatter and hide all his high value military targets in deep dark little holes in out of the way places instead of on the front lines where they are easy to hit...


...oh, wait.  ::)



Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.

I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.
I'm inclined to agree with this. I've got a couple friends saying that Russia is a shadow of it's Cold War height. True or not, I doubt their military is a pushover, or that any ensuing conflict would be brief.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 02, 2013, 08:55:09 pm
Russia is not going to pick a fight with the US, Fred is right in that Putin isn't that fucking dumb. As was said earlier in the thread, all Russia is doing is a token show of support for their ally. It's why they've only sent two cruisers against an aircraft carrier and its support vessels. Once the US starts flinging bombs in Syria's general direction, they Russian ships will be leaving post-haste.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 02, 2013, 08:57:02 pm
Russia is not going to pick a fight with the US, Fred is right in that Putin isn't that fucking dumb. As was said earlier in the thread, all Russia is doing is a token show of support for their ally. It's why they've only sent two cruisers against an aircraft carrier and its support vessels. Once the US starts flinging bombs in Syria's general direction, they Russian ships will be leaving post-haste.

That's it. It's a bluff, and not a good one. In some ways, Putin doesn't deserve the rep he's got (in other ways, he very much does).
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 02, 2013, 09:00:41 pm
To his own countrymen, Putin's the devil incarnate.  To the rest of the world, he's a big bitch.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Canadian Mojo on September 02, 2013, 09:42:26 pm
Nonsense. No Russian leader, least of all Putin, is going to commit suicide over an irrelevant naval base.

I take it you feel that Obama is somewhat less sane and is willing to commit suicide over a bunch of foreign nationals being killed in a civil war half a world away. If Russia and America start swinging at each other there is no guarantee who would be left standing.

There is no obligation on Russia to use force in defence of Syrians. There is indeed an obligation on Obama to use force if the Russians use force in defence of the Syrians. If the Russians launch an attack on the US fleet, the US will retaliate, 100%. The Russians know this. They also know how much force Obama can drop on their heads. Therefore, the Russians will not launch an attack.

There is no obligation on America to use force in defence of the group of Syrians they want to win either. If Russia says that it will defend the territorial sovereignty of Syria from foreign attack and puts assets in place to do so, suddenly the U.S. is the aggressor and it would be quite reasonable for Russia to shoot at any incoming planes or missiles because "all" it is doing is trying to make sure an internal conflict remains an internal conflict.

It really depends on how you want to spin it.

Quote
Now, I think this is still stupid. Any strike on Syria will kill loads of Syrians. It will not save them, it will kill them. US credibility is not on the line: the US has, in the last decade, shown it will use force whenever it goddamn pleases, there is no need for a future demonstration. Furthermore, there is no international norm against chemical weapons use. The US government used banned chemical weapons in Fallujah without bombing Washington or arresting anyone (also, Saddam, too).

Yup I agree, it is stupid. Even if this doesn't somehow go sideways on them right now, this is not something that will help America in the future because blow-back is inevitable.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 02, 2013, 09:52:04 pm
That would be a different story. If Russia put some Russian AAA in Syria, or maybe a few Russian-manned jets and told everyone "hey we totally have Russians in Syria, here here and here!" then the US couldn't do anything. They have no done so, nor will they.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: lord gibbon on September 02, 2013, 10:21:41 pm
To his own countrymen, Putin's the devil incarnate.  To the rest of the world, he's a big bitch.

Unfortunately, half the problem is that to much of Russia, Putin is Jesus. Remember, they are still smarting from losing power after the Cold War ended, and Putin is promising to take that power back.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 02, 2013, 10:33:03 pm
To his own countrymen, Putin's the devil incarnate.  To the rest of the world, he's a big bitch.

Unfortunately, half the problem is that to much of Russia, Putin is Jesus. Remember, they are still smarting from losing power after the Cold War ended, and Putin is promising to take that power back.
Their nation lost power recently, and they have a charismatic leader who knows exactly what went wrong, what to do and how to regain it. He allies himself with nations on the wrong side of human rights, persecutes minorities, and is the personal Jesus to a fair portion of his nation. They're swept up in nationalistic pride. Oh, and they're hosting the Olympics soon. And everyone wants to appease him. Why is it that so many liberals are so fucking blind to history? Sometimes, I'm embarrassed to be associated with it, because we want peace so badly we'll hide behind any Internet joke and piles of denial to avoid violence, which only causes more down the road. Sometimes, you need to punch the other guy in the balls BEFORE he's started attacking you, not after he's already begun firing.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: starseeker on September 03, 2013, 06:21:30 am
UK papers are now annoyed because the US is giving us the cold shoulder and siding up to France because we aren't being massively gung-ho about intervening in Syria. So much "but the special relationship" going around. And some good-old fashioned American and French bashers have come out of the woodwork.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 03, 2013, 06:33:28 am
UK papers are now annoyed because the US is giving us the cold shoulder and siding up to France because we aren't being massively gung-ho about intervening in Syria. So much "but the special relationship" going around. And some good-old fashioned American and French bashers have come out of the woodwork.
I blame my girlfriend for the Hetalia-related mental images here.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Cataclysm on September 03, 2013, 05:00:27 pm
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9234222
Quote
President Barack Obama won critical support from House Speaker John Boehner for a punitive strike against Syria on Tuesday and dispatched senior Cabinet officials to persuade Congress that Bashar Assad's government must be punished for a suspected chemical weapons attack the administration blames for more than 1,000 dead.

The leader of House Republicans, Boehner emerged from a meeting at the White House and said the United States has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary."
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 03, 2013, 05:03:52 pm
A definite about face from Bohner but not surprising.

Ironbite-he knows exactly what'll happen if they don't give Obama authorization.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 03, 2013, 05:40:21 pm
A definite about face from Bohner but not surprising.

Ironbite-he knows exactly what'll happen if they don't give Obama authorization.

Good.

...

What'll happen exactly if they don't give Obama authorization?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 03, 2013, 05:48:25 pm
The Tea Party base will eat the GOP alive.

They're still going to of course.  I mean, they're working with the Great Traitor that is Obama but this way the Democrats running against them can't pull the "They voted against giving Obama the opportunity to bomb more brown people" card.

Ironbite-all about the bombing brown people.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on September 03, 2013, 11:05:48 pm
So Obama and Boehner are in favor of bombing Syria now? Oh good, now we can go from "Terrified" to "Scared Shitless."
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 04, 2013, 12:41:49 am
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1208916_10151574904105800_1579045839_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 04, 2013, 12:42:34 am
Ahh but you're forgetting the most important part here.  2014 is coming up and that's an election year.  But letting Obama bomb Syria and Assad into the dust, Bohner and the rest of the GOP set themselves up to be primaried by Tea Party candidates that actually have no chance in hell during a state wide election.  This is Obama playing politics.

Ironbite-and all it cost him was a few cruise missiles.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 04, 2013, 12:48:39 am
The Tea Party base will eat the GOP alive.


They'll do that whether or not Congress gives the President authorization. Hell working with Obama on anything is treason to them. Even if Obama were do things that the Tea Party had been advocating for years, the Tea Party would call Obama a communist and assume the opposite position. In their mind, the right thing to do is ALWAYS the opposite of what Obama does. If Obama does it, it's automatically wrong.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 04, 2013, 02:12:21 am
Sounds like Obama should endorse the entire Tea Party platform.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: lord gibbon on September 04, 2013, 02:20:13 am
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I want Obama to come out in favor of breathing just to see the teatards stop.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 04, 2013, 06:26:02 am
Huh. Actual co-operation. Cool.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 05, 2013, 05:32:52 pm
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/2191830ce4a1914db5001ab56bcfac92/tumblr_mso91zJ3KW1r4o8jvo1_500.png)

Oh, Fox News. You're adorable.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 05, 2013, 05:38:40 pm
At this point, I'm confused. Is Fox saying to stay out of it?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Vypernight on September 05, 2013, 05:42:24 pm
Apparently, the vote is largely against it, with just enough votes left to swing the decision one way or another.


http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/congress-syria-positions?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D369477 (http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/congress-syria-positions?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D369477)
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 05, 2013, 06:28:12 pm
At this point, I'm confused. Is Fox saying to stay out of it?

Not even close to the point. It's so Islamophobic it's hilarious. The Civil War isn't about Islam, as far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on September 05, 2013, 06:57:40 pm
The civil war isn't about Islam, but it is being stoked by ethnic divisions that are based in religion. That said the headline is still stupid.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 05, 2013, 07:03:52 pm
That too.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 05, 2013, 07:12:23 pm
At this point, I'm confused. Is Fox saying to stay out of it?

Not even close to the point. It's so Islamophobic it's hilarious. The Civil War isn't about Islam, as far as I'm aware.
I agree with both statements, but I thought it was them doing the anti-Islam equivalent of saying to just let God decide.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on September 05, 2013, 07:16:27 pm
Yeah you don't have to support military action in Syria to know that Fox News is stupid. And evil. But mostly the former.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 05, 2013, 07:18:41 pm
It's Fox News, is honestly the only thing one has to say.

Just like 'it was the 80s.'
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 05, 2013, 08:39:03 pm
It looks like Liz Cheney, the most ardently pro-war pundit in the media, is against the Syria strike. As are staunch Iraq War supporters Rick Santorum and Paul Broun. On the other hand, Iraq War opponents John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are now beating the drums for war.

I'll bet these are principled conversions, and not purely self-serving flip-flops for political and partisan gain.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 05, 2013, 08:54:27 pm
Before, I was on the fence.  Now I'm saying that I'm against getting involved in this war.

That being said, Obama asking Congress for permission could be him passing the buck.  But I'm not optimistic enough to say that with any certainty.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on September 05, 2013, 10:03:08 pm
It looks like Liz Cheney, the most ardently pro-war pundit in the media, is against the Syria strike. As are staunch Iraq War supporters Rick Santorum and Paul Broun. On the other hand, Iraq War opponents John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are now beating the drums for war.

I'll bet these are principled conversions, and not purely self-serving flip-flops for political and partisan gain.
This is why I'm an independent.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Radiation on September 05, 2013, 10:32:16 pm
I'm pretty much against having another war, we just had two that put us in the hole. Let others deal with Syria for once.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 06, 2013, 03:58:59 am
I just found out that a year and a half ago, Rick Santorum was for a full military intervention in Syria. not just a bombing, a full invasion.

I think I know the reason why so many House Republicans who would almost certainly support the bombing of Syria if a Republican President was calling for it are voting against it. It's a Batman Gambit to get Obama impeached. If Obama bombs Syria anyway after Congress votes no (and since he bombed Libya two years ago without even asking Congress for authorization, this is a very likely possibility), they will be able to impeach Obama for violating the War Powers Act and overstepping his Constitutional Boundries.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 06, 2013, 06:36:23 am
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG SO WRONG!

The War Powers Act only applies if this is an actual war.  Otherwise, Obama has 90 days to play with his bombs before getting the fuck out.  As Obama is also the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with the military.  As long as he's out of Syria by the 90th day of the first bomb being thrown that is.

Ironbite-this is a Batman Gambit on Obama's part to get the GOP to do something.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 06, 2013, 07:02:24 am
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP.  Whatever they decide is on them.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Canadian Mojo on September 06, 2013, 09:54:49 am
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP.  Whatever they decide is on them.
Admittedly, I like him (sort of) setting the precedence that even with the power at his disposal he will ask the people for permission before letting shit fly. Realistically, having 90 days of free reign over military action will force the U.S. into a war if that is any president's intention. On the downside, this endless public debate gives the enemy a lot of time to prepare their defences which really sucks if you are one of the pawns that is going to be used to breach them.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Meshakhad on September 06, 2013, 10:52:57 am
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP.  Whatever they decide is on them.
Admittedly, I like him (sort of) setting the precedence that even with the power at his disposal he will ask the people for permission before letting shit fly. Realistically, having 90 days of free reign over military action will force the U.S. into a war if that is any president's intention. On the downside, this endless public debate gives the enemy a lot of time to prepare their defences which really sucks if you are one of the pawns that is going to be used to breach them.

Most of those pawns are Tomahawk missiles.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Canadian Mojo on September 06, 2013, 01:23:20 pm
Or this is Obama passing responsibility for this to the GOP.  Whatever they decide is on them.
Admittedly, I like him (sort of) setting the precedence that even with the power at his disposal he will ask the people for permission before letting shit fly. Realistically, having 90 days of free reign over military action will force the U.S. into a war if that is any president's intention. On the downside, this endless public debate gives the enemy a lot of time to prepare their defences which really sucks if you are one of the pawns that is going to be used to breach them.

Most of those pawns are Tomahawk missiles.

For now. Hopefully it stays that way.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Cataclysm on September 06, 2013, 02:20:24 pm
Quote
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 06, 2013, 02:55:30 pm
YAY!  Its another idiot who doesn't know what the fuck is going on.

Ironbite-WHO KEEPS ELECTING THESE FUCKING MORONS!?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 06, 2013, 02:58:56 pm
YAY!  Its another idiot who doesn't know what the fuck is going on.

Ironbite-WHO KEEPS ELECTING THESE FUCKING MORONS!?

Americans.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Radiation on September 06, 2013, 06:15:46 pm
Dumb Americans, we're full of 'em.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Auri-El on September 06, 2013, 07:22:07 pm
Quote
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html

Wait, is he saying we should be defending the guy in charge? The guy who ordered the killing of his citizens for no reason? The guy who supposedly used illegal weapons against his own people?? THAT'S the side we should be on??
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 06, 2013, 07:33:54 pm
Quote
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html

Wait, is he saying we should be defending the guy in charge? The guy who ordered the killing of his citizens for no reason? The guy who supposedly used illegal weapons against his own people?? THAT'S the side we should be on??
Christians. Those are the only humans in the eyes of Republicans.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 06, 2013, 10:23:46 pm
Quote
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/rand-paul-syria_n_3852644.html

Rand Paul, if you want to argue against intervention, don't make it sound like you're okay with dictators as long as they are "protecting Christians." I'm against intervention because it's a waste of money, a waste of lives, and we don't need yet another war in the Middle East (the third in little more than a decade). I don't oppose it because Assad is protecting Christians while persecuting people of other faiths. Contrary to what Rand Paul is implying (probably not intentionally, but it's how he's coming off) Christians aren't the only people who deserve freedom.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on September 06, 2013, 11:56:21 pm
It's Rand Paul so he is being intentional
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 07, 2013, 10:00:13 am
Ooh, now Russia's delivering some advanced anti-ship and anti-air missile systems to Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/middleeast/russia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). The anti-ship missiles can hit targets as far away as Cyprus (where the US has several military bases), and advanced targeting systems that, in theory, will have an easy time striking naval vessels. The AA platforms, as well, appear to be more advanced than what US forces have had to deal with in the past.

The following weeks are going to be so much fun to watch.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 07, 2013, 01:00:10 pm
...We're going to end up going to war with Russia, aren't we?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: SimSim on September 07, 2013, 01:15:17 pm
No, it's just posturing. Russia gains nothing from a conflict with the US.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 07, 2013, 02:13:24 pm
Yeah but are those state of the art systems or cold war surplus?

Ironbite-my money's on the latter...Putin needs to stop trying to back this moron.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 07, 2013, 02:17:37 pm
Yeah but are those state of the art systems or cold war surplus?

Ironbite-my money's on the latter...Putin needs to stop trying to back this moron.
I'm not familiar enough with Russian/Soviet weaponry to say how advanced they are, only that the information I've found says that this tech is more advanced than anything the US has come up against in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 07, 2013, 02:20:19 pm
That's not saying much dude.

Ironbite-I mean, the highest form of tech in the Middle East right now that's not US Military is a rock tied to a stick.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 07, 2013, 02:28:07 pm
I can only go by what I've found.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 07, 2013, 07:51:06 pm
Most of the stuff that has been given to Syria was Cold War surplus. Take of that what you will. I doubt Putin would give away state-of-the-art stuff. He needs it for Mother Russia.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 07, 2013, 07:58:55 pm
The P-800 Oniks is pretty new. The problem- and this is the problem with all anti-ship-cruise-missile systems- is that 50% of the US Navy's effort is spent to stopping them. You're not going to sink anything with 72 Oniks, it'll be detected three hours off and then blown up by CIWS.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mellenORL on September 07, 2013, 08:32:33 pm
The AA is pointless, too, if the proposed self guided cruise missile attack is used. Unless somebody has an anti-cruise missile-cruise missile, or magic tech rocket drones with laser lances, a Tomahawk is just gonna glide right through and go boom.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 10, 2013, 03:23:18 am
Does anyone think this Syria debacle is another distraction from the NSA issue?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 10, 2013, 03:27:55 am
It got real conspiracy theory in here.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 10, 2013, 03:34:03 am
No doubt the Republicans have tied in Obamacare in that.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: kefkaownsall on September 10, 2013, 11:45:15 am
republicans are voting no in house and dems vote yes damn
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 10, 2013, 02:33:22 pm
Doesn't matter.  Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.

Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mellenORL on September 10, 2013, 02:40:02 pm
Does anyone think this Syria debacle is another distraction from the NSA issue?

Only if the entire civilized world is obsessed over the NSA and Snowden, etc., not really. The issues are only tangentially related.

The offer of the day from Russia sounds nice on paper (NATO supervised removal of Syrian chem weapon supplies to be handed over to Russia, and from there to be destroyed under NATO supervision, allegedly), but it gives too much time for Assad to hide a few canister warheads, and who the fuck trusts Putin, anyway.

If Assad really ceases to use chem weapons ever again, fine as to that, but he still needs to be under the gun for having already massacred innocents.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 10, 2013, 02:59:57 pm
republicans are voting no in house and dems vote yes damn

I think that fact alone says a lot about partisanship and the how strong the ridiculous concept of "party loyalty" is among our leaders.

The NSA data-mining program thing is a case in point:

(http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/files/2013/06/pewpoll.jpg)
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Vypernight on September 10, 2013, 03:56:53 pm
Doesn't matter.  Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.

Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.

I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along.  Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again).  Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.

If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 10, 2013, 04:09:43 pm
Doesn't matter.  Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.

Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.

I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along.  Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again).  Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.

If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
Actually, I think it was Russia's plan. Syria uses chemical weapons, Russia keeps us away for it bit, "enters talks", and "convinces them to give them up". Russia looks like the big damn heroes, and America looks evil.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 10, 2013, 05:48:33 pm
Doesn't matter.  Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.

Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.

I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along.  Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again).  Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.

If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
Actually, I think it was Russia's plan. Syria uses chemical weapons, Russia keeps us away for it bit, "enters talks", and "convinces them to give them up". Russia looks like the big damn heroes, and America looks evil.

Considering that Russia has been locking up political dissidents and gays, Vladimir Putin would have to be a super-intelligent chess master in order to make Russia look like the hero right now.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Sigmaleph on September 10, 2013, 09:52:32 pm
America won't look any more or less evil over one more instance of playing World Police.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 10, 2013, 09:56:43 pm
Doesn't matter.  Syria is now opening up to talks with the UN about getting rid of the chemical weapons.

Ironbite-someone told them that no matter where they hide the damn things, the US will blow them up.

I wonder if that was Obama's plan all along.  Scared the living **** out of Syria while we argue about whether to bomb another country (again).  Then they agree to hand everything over, and we never fired a shot.

If it's true, awesome Batmat Gambit!
Actually, I think it was Russia's plan. Syria uses chemical weapons, Russia keeps us away for it bit, "enters talks", and "convinces them to give them up". Russia looks like the big damn heroes, and America looks evil.

Considering that Russia has been locking up political dissidents and gays, Vladimir Putin would have to be a super-intelligent chess master in order to make Russia look like the hero right now.
He used to lead the KGB, and took over Russia in what I doubt will be a presidency shorter than his lifespan. He is pretty much that intelligent.

America won't look any more or less evil over one more instance of playing World Police.
Okay, maybe not evil. Still looks like douchey morons.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Vypernight on September 11, 2013, 04:34:09 am
It reminded me of a scene from Princess Bride.

Obama:  "Hand over your chemical weapons."
Syria:  "We don't have any chemical weapons."
Russia:  "Mess with them and you mess with us."
Obama:  "Congress, take a vote, though technically, I can bomb the **** out of them for a couple of months before you even decide."
Russia:  "Just give them the ******* weapons!"
Syria:  "Oh, you mean These chemical weapons."
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Askold on September 11, 2013, 04:37:21 am
And now Putin is using the fact that Syria gave in to push USA, by making Obama agreeing not to use force be a requirement to continue the negotiations.

Putin is smart.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 11, 2013, 08:45:48 am
Putin's an idiot if he thinks the US will listen to him.

Ironbite-when you don't care about your international rep, hard to use it against someone.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mellenORL on September 11, 2013, 12:26:13 pm
Or maybe the whole thing has been a cooperative international pressure tactic against Assad from the beginning, with diplomatic strategists figuring he's an unsophisticated clod who can be guided into being trapped in a corner, since there is enough proof to condemn him anyway. Obama's role is the "bad cop", Putin is the "good cop", NATO plays the role of mommy, and Assad finally cries "uncle".
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 11, 2013, 12:59:19 pm
Anyone thinking deja vu with Reagan's Star Wars if this was a bluff on the US' part?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Canadian Mojo on September 11, 2013, 01:49:24 pm
Anyone thinking deja vu with Reagan's Star Wars if this was a bluff on the US' part?
They weren't bluffing, they were just giving everyone a chance to talk their way out of it first.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 11, 2013, 02:52:02 pm
Anyone thinking deja vu with Reagan's Star Wars if this was a bluff on the US' part?
They weren't bluffing, they were just giving everyone a chance to talk their way out of it first.
I meant on Obama's position to take action earlier, but ok.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 11, 2013, 02:53:13 pm
To actually have been a bluff, Obama would've had to been suffering from a brain disorder.

Ironbite-beyond the one that turns all politicians into amoral douchebags./
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on September 11, 2013, 05:34:27 pm
Or maybe the whole thing has been a cooperative international pressure tactic against Assad from the beginning, with diplomatic strategists figuring he's an unsophisticated clod who can be guided into being trapped in a corner, since there is enough proof to condemn him anyway. Obama's role is the "bad cop", Putin is the "good cop", NATO plays the role of mommy, and Assad finally cries "uncle".
Huh. That might actually be the case. It would be a brilliant Xanatos Gambit.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 11, 2013, 06:44:00 pm
I think that's being a little optimistic.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 11, 2013, 07:12:07 pm
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.

Quote
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.

Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.

However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.

So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.

The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.

Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Yippee
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 11, 2013, 07:52:27 pm
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.

Quote
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.

Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.

However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.

So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.

The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.

Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Yippee

Huh, this probably the first time I've read a conservative argument that had actual points of merit to it in well over a year. Although I'm not quite sure Obama wouldn't do it if it were more politically convenient. If more Americans supported intervention, I have no doubt that Obama would go ahead with the bombing. But with 61% of the country opposed to intervention, it would be very bad politically for Obama to circumvent Congress and bomb Syria. It would be Unconstitutional as well, but our political leaders don't care much about the Constitution except during election years. And even then, they care only about the parts of it that they agree with.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Shane for Wax on September 11, 2013, 08:01:08 pm
I just saw a post with a guy in uniform saying 'I didn't join the Navy to fight for Al Quaeda in Syria.'
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: mythbuster43 on September 11, 2013, 08:23:39 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html?ref=syria&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html?ref=syria&_r=0)

It looks like the strike has been averted...for now.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 11, 2013, 08:30:18 pm
I just saw a post with a guy in uniform saying 'I didn't join the Navy to fight for Al Quaeda in Syria.'
Which is strange given I've seen 2 military men saying they're willing to go, one of which I've quoted somewhere before.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Her3tiK on September 11, 2013, 08:31:35 pm
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.

Quote
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.

Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.

However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.

So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.

The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.

Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Yippee

Huh, this probably the first time I've read a conservative argument that had actual points of merit to it in well over a year. Although I'm not quite sure Obama wouldn't do it if it were more politically convenient. If more Americans supported intervention, I have no doubt that Obama would go ahead with the bombing. But with 61% of the country opposed to intervention, it would be very bad politically for Obama to circumvent Congress and bomb Syria. It would be Unconstitutional as well, but our political leaders don't care much about the Constitution except during election years. And even then, they care only about the parts of it that they agree with.
So, what he's saying is that we're stuck between Iraq...

...and a hard place.




Shut up. That's the best pun I could think of.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 11, 2013, 08:42:39 pm
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.

Quote
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.

Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.

However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.

So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.

The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.

Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Yippee

Huh, this probably the first time I've read a conservative argument that had actual points of merit to it in well over a year. Although I'm not quite sure Obama wouldn't do it if it were more politically convenient. If more Americans supported intervention, I have no doubt that Obama would go ahead with the bombing. But with 61% of the country opposed to intervention, it would be very bad politically for Obama to circumvent Congress and bomb Syria. It would be Unconstitutional as well, but our political leaders don't care much about the Constitution except during election years. And even then, they care only about the parts of it that they agree with.
So, what he's saying is that we're stuck between Iraq...

...and a hard place.




Shut up. That's the best pun I could think of.
I thought it was clever enough for a laugh.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 12, 2013, 01:10:34 am
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.

Quote
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.

Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.

However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.

So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.

The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.

Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Yippee

Nope, still stupid.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Witchyjoshy on September 12, 2013, 01:35:12 am
Nope, still stupid.

I will flick your forehead.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: KZN02 on September 12, 2013, 01:39:34 am
Had this discussion with a right-leaning friend.

Quote
Me: Anyone think the Obama's wanting to take action may be a bluff? I'm suddenly reminded of Star Wars.

Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it. He also tried to force this, and because of that, set us up for a lose-lose situation. If it were Bush, Clinton, etc, we'd have been in there and raised all hell.

However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support. Obama's threat to go to war, to invade, and to remove the weapons are seemingly more and more intangible. Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

It's now a double edged sword. Go to war: be labeled as a war monger (much like how Obama portrayed Bush), lose lives, raise taxes, increase spending, continue to confuse Middle East relations. Don't go to war: Be labeled as an indecisive leader, show a weak resolve, promote future aggresion through appeasement.

So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun (Gee, thanks everyone!), Putin preventing war (Or at least stalling for Syria) to serve his own initiative, and Obama posing like some tough-guy president.

The only winners are the oppressors now. Syria, North Korea, etc. are starting to get used to these idle threats. I mean seriously, now we're getting news that NK is restarting their plutonium nuclear factory for bombs already.

Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Yippee

Nope, still stupid.
I would like your explanations then.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Lt. Fred on September 12, 2013, 02:04:50 am
Quote
Friend: It clearly is a bluff, Obama doesn't have the balls to just go and do it.

This is false. Obama bombed Libya. Obama would bomb Syria. Congress/the international community may not let him, and shouldn't.

Quote
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support.

Probably Canada; Australia would help a bro out if you asked.

Quote
Now here is Syria thinking "Hey, these guys aren't going to war, they're just blowing smoke". Every one of these hesitations make oppressors more confident, Hitler's aggressive before WW2 ringing a bell?

Fred's law: anyone who makes a reference to Nuremburg when advocating a bellicose foreign policy against some small, relatively unarmed state is a moron.

Quote
So here we are, with a UN that is about as useful as a water-gun

Saved only a couple of thousand lives.

Quote
Funny how this is eerily reminiscent of the prelude to WW2. League of Nations, USSR, economical turmoil seem to be checked. All that we're missing is something like pre-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Quoted without comment.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 12, 2013, 02:18:17 am
Quote
However now, it gets more complex, mainly cause we have like, only France in support.

Probably Canada; Australia would help a bro out if you asked.
Please don't give them any ideas. We're going to have more than enough of our own bullshit to deal with in the next four years without America dragging us into foreign scuffles.
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: MadCatTLX on September 12, 2013, 08:12:54 am
Ok, so Glenn Beck is against the war, "because it's progressive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCzTCcK1kMc
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: Dakota Bob on September 12, 2013, 08:38:37 am
Hold on, what? Did Glenn Beck finally jump the shark?
Title: Re: Fun times in Syria
Post by: ironbite on September 12, 2013, 09:06:51 am
He jumped the shark awhile ago.  He's back for a second run now.