So How Does Syria Play Out?

[Batboy2/75]

The President Now decides he should get Congressional Approval, but says he will still act anyways if he doesn't get the answer he wants.

I've got a different take: he's setting up the need for Congressional approval as his way out. If Congress approves, he can say it's America's decision-the people have spoken. If they say "no way" then he can claim he tried his hardest but no tomahawks today.

Either way he's slipping out of having this clusterfuck land solely and squarely on his shoulders.

The president has done enough on his own to damage his standing in international circles. The only way Congress could share in any of the blame is if they vote to go along with this boondoggle

Watching Secretary Lurch this morning claiming the President will act with or without Congress's approval was fucking surreal. How the world turns when the shoe is on the other foot.

[baffled]

Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.

Chemical weapons are uniquely terrible and get unique attention across the planet. While it appears now that the West is trending towards its traditional role of pussying out and looking the other way, the fact that there is all this hand wringing over it tells you that folks feel viscerally that chemical weapons cross some sort of divide.

Human can rationalize anything, and you are well on the path to rationalizing chemical weapons as No Big Deal. I'm not there, and don't plan to be.

I'm not rationalizing it but I am claiming it
A) cannot be enforced well without an invasion
B) sends the message that conventional carnage is A-OK

We can't stop chemical weapons use, I agree. We are just adding elements to the decision calculus. Assad joins a very small, select club of Dictators who have used chem weps. How has it worked out for each of them? A little reminder won't hurt.

Conventional carnage A-OK? No. We're just saying we don't care enough about that, which is true.

What about those rebels who the UN inspector believes launched a chemical attack a few months ago?

Shouldn't we have enforced the rules after that?

Why are we now so sure that this attack is the one that needs to be punished? It seems a bit... bullshit.

I'm surprised that you're so trusting of a government that's repeatedly been caught in lies and corruption over the last... well, as long as it's existed.

We would never, seriously when have we ever, bombed another country for reasons that weren't pure and justified.

[nafod]

Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.

Chemical weapons are uniquely terrible and get unique attention across the planet. While it appears now that the West is trending towards its traditional role of pussying out and looking the other way, the fact that there is all this hand wringing over it tells you that folks feel viscerally that chemical weapons cross some sort of divide.

Human can rationalize anything, and you are well on the path to rationalizing chemical weapons as No Big Deal. I'm not there, and don't plan to be.

I'm not rationalizing it but I am claiming it
A) cannot be enforced well without an invasion
B) sends the message that conventional carnage is A-OK

We can't stop chemical weapons use, I agree. We are just adding elements to the decision calculus. Assad joins a very small, select club of Dictators who have used chem weps. How has it worked out for each of them? A little reminder won't hurt.

Conventional carnage A-OK? No. We're just saying we don't care enough about that, which is true.

What about those rebels who the UN inspector believes launched a chemical attack a few months ago?

Shouldn't we have enforced the rules after that?

Why are we now so sure that this attack is the one that needs to be punished? It seems a bit... bullshit.

Assad stands for Syria. He is the head of state. The rebels are...rebels.

Plus, we have hard proof Assad did the attack. Comms intercepts, visuals on where the missiles were launched, forensic evidence, video evidence.

If the rebels used chem weapons, where did they get them from? Syria has a responsibility to maintain control of its chemical weapons at all times.

Head of State comes with responsibilities and expectations above and beyond your average Joe.

So you really believe that Assad didn't attack those people with chemical weapons? Or are you just trying to put enough uncertainty and doubt into the equation so as to keep Assad from being attacked?

[VO2 maxed]

Hypocrisy. That is the lesson that is on display.

From the President, to his corrupt party, to the nut less hacks Congress, down to the petty tyrants that voted for a demagogue.

Calm down. The peace loving folks on the other side of the aisle who are suddenly concerned with having congressional approval every step of the way and who are dead set against interfering in the affairs of other countries are just as hypocritical. The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

Except the other side of the aisle got gongressional approval. That little tid bit you left out.

Nobody said that Obama had received Congressional approval yet.

He just decided to ask Congress first the other day.

[VO2 maxed]

Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.

Chemical weapons are uniquely terrible and get unique attention across the planet. While it appears now that the West is trending towards its traditional role of pussying out and looking the other way, the fact that there is all this hand wringing over it tells you that folks feel viscerally that chemical weapons cross some sort of divide.

Human can rationalize anything, and you are well on the path to rationalizing chemical weapons as No Big Deal. I'm not there, and don't plan to be.

I'm not rationalizing it but I am claiming it
A) cannot be enforced well without an invasion
B) sends the message that conventional carnage is A-OK

We can't stop chemical weapons use, I agree. We are just adding elements to the decision calculus. Assad joins a very small, select club of Dictators who have used chem weps. How has it worked out for each of them? A little reminder won't hurt.

Conventional carnage A-OK? No. We're just saying we don't care enough about that, which is true.

What about those rebels who the UN inspector believes launched a chemical attack a few months ago?

Shouldn't we have enforced the rules after that?

Why are we now so sure that this attack is the one that needs to be punished? It seems a bit... bullshit.

Assad stands for Syria. He is the head of state. The rebels are...rebels.

Plus, we have hard proof Assad did the attack. Comms intercepts, visuals on where the missiles were launched, forensic evidence, video evidence.

If the rebels used chem weapons, where did they get them from? Syria has a responsibility to maintain control of its chemical weapons at all times.

Head of State comes with responsibilities and expectations above and beyond your average Joe.

So you really believe that Assad didn't attack those people with chemical weapons? Or are you just trying to put enough uncertainty and doubt into the equation so as to keep Assad from being attacked?

The Israeli's said so. They claim to have intercepts of Assad "talking about chemical weapons". They however, have a vested interest in this (as well as the Saudis, Turks, etc.). And have lied to us before to get what they want.
Locals observed Saudis giving chemicals to the rebels, who then staged the attack. Who to believe ?
One glaring problem is that the attack occurred a day or two after the inspection team arrived. Would Assad be that stupid ? And so close to Damascus ? And the rescue personel in the video weren't observed wearing any kind of protection.
It looks the question should be, do you just want any excuse to attack Assad ,with so much uncertainty about this ? Not to mention the violation of international law by attacking those who didn't attack you.
Oh... and the rebels who are just rebels are dominated by Al Quiada , Nusra and other radical Sunni types. Unimpeachable characters.

[baffled]

Assad stands for Syria. He is the head of state. The rebels are...rebels.

So what? Why should that matter? Why should the "red line" apply to actions of the state but not to rebels? Why would we ever want to help either side anyway? Assad's a dictator and a prick. The rebels have Al-Qaeda involved in their effort.

Plus, we have hard proof Assad did the attack. Comms intercepts, visuals on where the missiles were launched, forensic evidence, video evidence.

You're right. That sort of evidence isn't easily faked. We're good at figuring this stuff out.

If the rebels used chem weapons, where did they get them from? Syria has a responsibility to maintain control of its chemical weapons at all times.

The belief a few months ago was that the Turks caught rebel troops with chemical weapons traveling through Turkey. Any number of countries could have given them the weapons, they didn't have to get them from Syria.

Pretty weak to assume if the rebels got hold of chemical weapons that they stole them from the Syrian army. That's what you're arguing, right?

Even weaker to use that as part of a justification for lobbing a few missiles their way.

Head of State comes with responsibilities and expectations above and beyond your average Joe.

No shit.

So you really believe that Assad didn't attack those people with chemical weapons? Or are you just trying to put enough uncertainty and doubt into the equation so as to keep Assad from being attacked?

I'm saying it's not our problem and doesn't serve our interests to see Assad fall. If the rules need to be enforced to make sure they kill each other with the right weapons, then let their neighbors do it.

[Wild Bill]

nafod, you are really funny. Seriously.
By your words, rebels stole chems from state, then use it. But state forces should be striked for it...
You would be a good communist if you live in USSR :))

[Wild Bill]

Someone here mentioned Russian navy base in Syria. It already evacuated :)
Times of vietnamese pilot Li-Si-Tsyn are gone :))

[nafod]

nafod, you are really funny. Seriously.
By your words, rebels stole chems from state, then use it. But state forces should be striked for it...
You would be a good communist if you live in USSR :))

Nope, not arguing that. I am saying if the rebels got the chemical weapons from Syria, then Syria is responsible for not maintaining control of them. But the rebels have punished them for their incompetence anyway. Besides, I don't think the rebels have them. If they do, then Al Qaeda has them. If Al Qaeda has them, then next stop is a major city in the West. If that is the case, thanks Syria.

By the way, the Russians were the worst. We spent a shit-ton of money helping you guys lock down your WMDs after you split into a bunch of little -stans.

[nafod]

I'm saying it's not our problem and doesn't serve our interests to see Assad fall.

Free use of chemical weapons is everyone's problem. But I agree seeing Assad fall is not in our interests.

[nafod]

One glaring problem is that the attack occurred a day or two after the inspection team arrived. Would Assad be that stupid ? And so close to Damascus ? And the rescue personnel in the video weren't observed wearing any kind of protection.

You are assuming Assad didn't want to be detected. I assume the opposite, that his use of the weapons was as much a signal to the rest of the world as an attack on the rebels.

Lots of rescue personnel were contaminated and sickened, and many died.

[Turdacious]

Protesters are apparently picketing Sec. Kerry's house in Boston. I'm sure it will be effective at a time when he's spending all his time elsewhere.

[Wild Bill]

Rebels. Surely America should help them...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LCZew2C5Q[/youtube]

[Kazuya Mishima]

Rebels. Surely America should help them...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LCZew2C5Q[/youtube]

Well, you don't see that every day.

Were those children that they executed at the end?

[Bob Wildes]

I saw one, maybe two, red heads in that piece. How common is that in Syria?

[baffled]

Rebels. Surely America should help them...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LCZew2C5Q[/youtube]

What does the writing on the video say? Just a summary, if you will.

And what the fuck? How is that video still on YouTube?

[Bob Wildes]

Rebels. Surely America should help them...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LCZew2C5Q[/youtube]

What does the writing on the video say? Just a summary, if you will.

And what the fuck? How is that video still on YouTube?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daniel Pearl beheading is still on baffled.

[Kazuya Mishima]

I saw one, maybe two, red heads in that piece. How common is that in Syria?

Probably not very common at all. Like any Middle East conflict, this turd has drawn flies from all corners of the Muslim world. There's some talk of more than a few Chechnyans who have gone there to fight with the rebels. Would explain the light skin tone, and red hair.

[Kazuya Mishima]

This little story is a good illustration of the human race's stupidity, and American niggers in particular.

Say yes to war, cuz my homie done said.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... z2dqYiIC6J

[DARTH]

This little story is a good illustration of the human race's stupidity, and American niggers in particular.

Say yes to war, cuz my homie done said.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... z2dqYiIC6J

She is such a dumb cunt, it's not funny.

Black politicians in DC, with the exception of Fenty are like their cousins, ruling class Africans that screw their people over.

DC is one of the best examples of why we should do away with the right of franchise with out earning it. You let animals vote, you get people like Norton and Berry.

Fenty lost the reelection because he was a black man that actually gave a fuck and hired Rhee to fix the schools. The ignorant fucks there basically sided with lazy, stupid teachers Rhee fired or boxed over their own children's education.

So the blind loyalty or loyalty even when admitting it's a stupid idea does not surprise me from Dems, especially race pandering lessors who would not be where they were if they were white. (They get to hide behind their blackness)

[kreator]

I saw one, maybe two, red heads in that piece. How common is that in Syria?

Probably not very common at all. Like any Middle East conflict, this turd has drawn flies from all corners of the Muslim world. There's some talk of more than a few Chechnyans who have gone there to fight with the rebels. Would explain the light skin tone, and red hair.

Could be foreigners, but I don't think it's uncommon.
Never been to Syria but in Egypt I saw quite a few gingers. Reddish hair, grey-ish eyes, freckles and light skin, but they were most definitely Arab.

[kreator]

Impeccable!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... syria.html

[baffled]

Impeccable!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... syria.html

And she will never be unseated. Her seat has to be as safe as any in either house.

[Wild Bill]

I saw one, maybe two, red heads in that piece. How common is that in Syria?

As for me, i am sure they are Chechens.
Don't you know there almost no syrians among those "rebels"? :) there all kind of terrorists from the different ends of the world.

[Wild Bill]

What does the writing on the video say? Just a summary, if you will.

And what the fuck? How is that video still on YouTube?

This is not Russian writing, just cyrillic. May be Bulgarian... don't know. Some language with cyrillic.