[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
FWIW, these WMDs are the very WMDs trucked from Iraq that everyone claimed did not exist.[/quote]
I remember being ridiculed by the lefties back in the day for saying this. There was more than enough evidence in support of it, all they had to do was pull their heads out of the sand and see it.[/quote]
So you are Conservative? We might disagree theologically, but we can discuss Politics any day.
Looks like both sides of the aisle are wanting the Obama Administration to get Congressional Approval.
Obama is waiting on Britain’s Parliament to make a decision before he goes in. Obama went into Libya without approval. He better get it this time.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
FWIW, these WMDs are the very WMDs trucked from Iraq that everyone claimed did not exist.[/quote]
I remember being ridiculed by the lefties back in the day for saying this. There was more than enough evidence in support of it, all they had to do was pull their heads out of the sand and see it.[/quote]
Bush wanted Blaire to help Blaire wanted UN approval it was about six months of telegraphing what the US was going to do not hard for Saddam to think he could move his wmds get to Syria wait until the heat was gone go back and assume power again.
My questions regarding the coming attack on Syria:
Isn’t Assad smart enough to move whatever weapons cache he has? I don’t think we’re going to be able to bomb a few places from the sea and say we made great progress in eliminating WMDs.
What are we planning to do? Bomb a few air bases to weaken Assad? I think that just extends the war and doesn’t accomplish much.
How will we, and the world, respond if Syria decides to attack Israel in retaliation? Damascus has already threatened to do this, and Israel has already responded. But what if Assad just says fuck it I can’t beat the Saudi and al-Queda backed rebels AND the West so I’ll just wreak havoc because fuck my enemies that’s why.
Ultimately, I think we just bullshit around and do some superficial damage to Assad and call it a day. So Kerry and Obama don’t look like complete shit heads with all of their tough guy rhetoric and red line comments. The media will declare it a win and gush how great Obama is. The Syrian war drags on as before and we piss off Russia and China.
The worst outcome is Syria attacks Israel in response, setting off a chain of events that leads to WW3.
Jewbacca - how would Israel respond? Bomb the shit out of Syria, send troops in? Would a jihadist-led Syria worry you or just more of the same? That would be funny, Israel commandos and al-Queda jihadists teaming up to take down the Syrian army.
Anyway, Syria is completely fucked no matter what happens. Complete shit hole for at least 3 decades after this.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[/quote]
Correct. Most likely, it will be an expensive fireworks show and little more. If you had people on the ground (briefly) a better job could be insured, but I 100% doubt that will happen.
Aside from the Contitutional issues of Obama doing this without any legal authority, it’s worth a try. Whatever eventual victor there is in Syria will be a bad guy, and depriving that victor of these weapons is not a bad thing.
Cost the US taxpayer a couple of billions, though.
Assad will shell/missle Israel in response, or at least try.
He could even use chemical weapons, but it will not be to much effect. Every citizen has a gas mask and our civilian ventilation systems are designed for this eventuality.
The north end of my country (where, as it happens, my desired retirement home is — I have a skill for this, apparently) will get hit. The goal is to prod Israel into action because the only thing the warring factions agree on is that all the Jews need to be killed.
Remember, the coalition against Assad hate each other almost as much as they hate Assad. I suspect he hopes to peal one or two off and have them join him by goading Israel.
A serious attack by Israel would result in the Syrians unifying to attack Israel.
I predict Bibi will pretty much sit this one at, probably attacking very specific artillery targets to end immediate threat to Israel — we have probably the best counter-battery fire in the world, according to several US Army people I’ve talked to over the years — so they can end any attack on Israel promptly.
I guess it depends on which jihadist group wins and what time frame you talk about.
Assad is pretty much a thug, but really just interested in getting rich, having sex with his choice of women, and setting up his descendants in like fashion. In short, he’s a less-flashy Col. Quadaffi and similarly of a limited threat than the jihadists who are true-believers and really want an Islamist state spanning the entire globe.
But he’s Iranian backed, certainly supports local (to me) jihadists of his flavor.
In the long run, the best thing to happen for the Syrian people (and Jordanians and Israelis) would be for the generals of both sides to take over and establish a military dictatorship that crushes the Islamists, ala what is going on in Egypt.
A targeted assasination by one of Assad’s men of him would be the way to do this.
That said, Syria does not have the fine military traditions of Eqypt, so this would not be as easy.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree totally with this. Anyone that thinks Obama is itching to get involved in this clusterfuck is loopy. What could be the upside?[/quote]
See my first post, its like post number 6 or 7 or something.
I read that Syria threatened Israel on another website yesterday. It would seem, as though we are quickly approaching WWIII. Anyone else excited? I’m not.
Syria will be the start, Israel will get pissed and bomb the hell out of them. This will give Iran and others to attack. US will get involved on behalf of Israel. Russia will get involved on behalf of their influence in the region - and to secure good relations for future oil prospects. The entirety of the Middle East and Russia China will be against Israel, the US, and maybe the UN.
I don’t think China will get involved. Why go to war with a country that’s your primary cash cow and who owes you money. Its like assaulting someone who owes you money and breaking their legs, now they can’t work to pay you back. On a positive, if China does go to war, we won’t be paying debt to an enemy/opponent.
Regardless, I see this as senseless to do, over-sensationalized, and good distraction from other issues - like National Debt (the race issue thing failed, let’s try war - since North Korea is being quiet, lets look at Syria).
Biden vows to impeach Bush if he goes to war without Congressional support back in 2007, go to 5:25 in the video…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/27/us-laying-groundwork-for-military-strike-on-syria/
This is like deja vu all over again. John Kerry’s speech yesterday sounded like Bush’s reasoning to go into Iraq. This is not going to end well.
I will admit I was on Bush’s side and so was almost every American after 9/11. With hind site 20/20 we should not have gone into Iraq. I do not see the reasoning to go into Syria. See post above to see what I think we should do.[/quote]
I wasn’t on Bush’s side at all. Pretty much everything I predicted would happen in Iraq 12 years ago has come true. Total instability, a nebulous, vague gov’t at best, no Saddam and no democracy either, a bastion/training ground for Islamist soldiers fighting all over the region, etc., etc.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
FWIW, these WMDs are the very WMDs trucked from Iraq that everyone claimed did not exist.[/quote]
I remember being ridiculed by the lefties back in the day for saying this. There was more than enough evidence in support of it, all they had to do was pull their heads out of the sand and see it.[/quote]
So you are Conservative? We might disagree theologically, but we can discuss Politics any day.[/quote]
I like to think that I take each issues on it’s own merits. Whether of not I’m a “conservative” will depend entirely on your particular definition of conservative and what issue we’re talking about.
Interesting thing about Christopher Hitchens; he made a HELLUVA good case for, and argued in support of Iraq. He really opened my eyes to angles I hadn’t considered prior to hearing his thoughts on the war.
And I always appreciate the discourse; theological or otherwise. 
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
FWIW, these WMDs are the very WMDs trucked from Iraq that everyone claimed did not exist.[/quote]
I remember being ridiculed by the lefties back in the day for saying this. There was more than enough evidence in support of it, all they had to do was pull their heads out of the sand and see it.[/quote]
Bush wanted Blaire to help Blaire wanted UN approval it was about six months of telegraphing what the US was going to do not hard for Saddam to think he could move his wmds get to Syria wait until the heat was gone go back and assume power again.
[/quote]
RIGHT! And there were plenty of satellite imagery showing night time truck shipments to the Syrian border, all more than a month prior to invasion.
Here’s something I’ve never understood. Why the FUCK do we care if armies start gassing the shit out of people, even civilians? We napalmed half the Vietnamese civilian population into oblivion, we’ve used Agent Orange all over the place, we’ve used an atomic bomb twice, we blow people into fucking smithereens all the time.
Listening to some of these dumbfuck politicians on both sides of the aisle scream and yell about gassing people comes across like some sort of deleted scene/outtake from Dr. Strangelove. When you’re blowing people up who cares how you do it? What’s the difference between napalm, 5000lb bunker busters, Agent Orange or anything type of weapon meant to kill massive amounts of people at once?
I’m guessing it has to do with what is considered humane killing and part of a “fair” war. I believe there was a document - maybe the Geneva Convention - that deal with what the terms are for a “just war” and anything else was liable to bring in outside influence from the UN. After all, isn’t the entire (original) purpose of the UN to maintain some form of order, good will, and agreement between the nations of the world?
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I’m guessing it has to do with what is considered humane killing and part of a “fair” war. I believe there was a document - maybe the Geneva Convention - that deal with what the terms are for a “just war” and anything else was liable to bring in outside influence from the UN. After all, isn’t the entire (original) purpose of the UN to maintain some form of order, good will, and agreement between the nations of the world?[/quote]
The terms of war laid out in the Geneva Convention is one of the biggest jokes perpetrated on mankind in the last 150 years. “Fair” war and “humane” killing are right up there with it. Fuck the UN.
“Oh, I’m sorry. We didn’t blow your legs off, kill your children and maim half the town’s population the right way. We’ll try to be more humane the next time we drop a 1000lb bomb through your living room.” What a fucking joke.
“Gee, I really don’t think it’s fair the way you’re fighting this war against us. Maybe instead of thinking only of yourselves and the lives of your soldiers you should start thinking about what’s fair for us, the people you’re trying to kill in as humane a way as possible.” Yeah fucking right.
Fair warfare and humane killings in war are the epitome of slave morality. War is NOT a sport. It is NOT a game. There are no rules for those who are in it to win it. The only ones who follow rules are the idiots vainly clinging to some fucking bullshit, 19th century, romanticized version of war that never existed in the first place. General Sherman was the fucking man. Who cares that he killed a bunch of Americans and laid waste to everything in sight? He was in the middle of a fucking WAR! It’s not any different than these people who argue that dropping the bombs on the Japs was inhumane. Fuck them and the kamikaze horses they rode in on. What were we supposed to do? Risk half a million American lives so that we could conduct the war in a way that was “fair” and “humane” for the Japanese? Fuck no.
I am so SICK of this shit about fighting wars half-assed. We are basically telling our own soldiers that they have to take extra risks, get killed more often, maimed more often, watch their buddy’s brains get blown all over them more often, and carry their dismembered bodies out of some shithole warzone more often because we feel the need to be fair and humane to the people hell-bent on killing us any way they can and wherever they can. It’s completely backwards, it’s beyond illogical, it’s a detriment to our foreign policy, and it’s a complete slap in the face to all of the brave young men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to protect this country at all costs. It’s a shame we aren’t putting the same effort into protecting them that they put into protecting us.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I am so SICK of this shit about fighting wars half-assed.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
…
[/quote]
Thank you for your detailed response. Always interesting to hear from people who are actually being affected.
Global warming has apparently wiped out the Puff-Chested North American War Protester.
-Iowa Hawk
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Here’s something I’ve never understood. Why the FUCK do we care if armies start gassing the shit out of people, even civilians? We napalmed half the Vietnamese civilian population into oblivion, we’ve used Agent Orange all over the place, we’ve used an atomic bomb twice, we blow people into fucking smithereens all the time.
Listening to some of these dumbfuck politicians on both sides of the aisle scream and yell about gassing people comes across like some sort of deleted scene/outtake from Dr. Strangelove. When you’re blowing people up who cares how you do it? What’s the difference between napalm, 5000lb bunker busters, Agent Orange or anything type of weapon meant to kill massive amounts of people at once?[/quote]
It’s like the crossbow. It just works way too good.
What else could you possibly use to wipe out an entire regions population with minimum damage to the existing infrastructure?
Thing is, nobody likes when one gets shot back at you.
This whole situation is messed up, but seems like part of a much longer term strategy. The big push from the outset of the wars in Iraq was to the north west toward Syria, which became the staging area for insurgents to fight against the US in northern Iraq. Pushing back to their source brings everything right into Syria.
Then, if you look at it on a map, it looks like the US has been cleaving a big swath of land right through to the Mediterranean sea and the only thing in the way now is Syria. On the other side of Iraq is Afghanistan, which McChrystal has admitted requires a long term strategy of assimilation and troop dedication. Pakistan has been wishy washy and duplicitous in their relations with the US, but there is a big gulf just below them that we use for support from the naval fleet.
So it all forms a big pincer, with Iran right between the claws. Sounds nuts for sure, but this seems much more like a very old strategy of siege warfare and cultural assimilation than just beating up a bunch of little countries run by crazy dictators.
But I’m not a geopolitical guy or war strategist, so that could all be a bunch of crap.
DB, you asked a question, I’m answering it. The Geneva Convention was to provide protection for prisoners of war, to prevent torture, starvation, gas chambers, etc. You may not have an issue with a war being fought to win, but when women and children are murdered, raped, and then hung from the city walls and televised for the world to see, I think you might feel differently.
War is meant to be fought between men (and now women, yay equal rights/opportunity) and used to have a degree of honor. Look at how they used to fight in the Revolutionary / Civil War - stand in lines and fire into each other - not the best strategy, but it had to do with honor.
Sure, the US could win by many means. We have the tools, the technology (Starship Troopers obligatory, would you like to know more?), but we don’t use everything because our goal isn’t to eradicate a society, its to stop injustice. And the ends do not justify the means. There is reason for control of action, and as tempting as it sometimes may be, its a slippery slope that could lead to things like nuclear holocaust, epidemics, and genocide - which is why I’m guessing Jewbaca did the “…”